From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 1 18:58:33 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 00:58:33 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] IRP IoT and IRP Standing Panel -- Please Review In-Reply-To: References: <6be494991c924af988b30f464c2ecfd9@verisign.com> Message-ID: Hi all, Another reminder to review the draft comment. Let's get this done and submitted this week. Best, Rafik On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 00:13 Rafik Dammak wrote: > it is reminder to all NCSG PC members to review the draft asap. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mer. 19 juin 2019 ? 05:34, farzaneh badii a > ?crit : > >> Hello Rafik >> >> I drafted a brief response to the 4 questions. I didn't know if you had >> prepared a google doc, sorry if I missed it. But the doc I prepared is >> here: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EhgKD9GhzheUVBC740WrEszd7dc1JtHwg7Q1wTNYPX8/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:36 PM Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I got this response from Sam in relation to my question about possible >>> extension: >>> >>> "The deadline had previously been moved from the beginning of May to May >>> 15, but we would be happy to receive any inputs from the NCSG when they are >>> available. Please submit to the publicly-archived email indicated and we >>> will include the NCSG?s inputs as we are continuing our analysis document." >>> >>> so we have last change to weigh in the process and submit a comment to >>> respond to the questions. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le lun. 17 juin 2019 ? 11:26, Rafik Dammak a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>> >>>> that is why I resent the reminder and communication from the council . >>>> it will be also discussed in Marrakech meeting. >>>> of course as it is not standard public comment, there is no indication >>>> of who is the right ICANN staff managing this (I assume it is legal >>>> counsel). I will reach Sam Eisner to check. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le sam. 15 juin 2019 ? 23:46, Stephanie Perrin < >>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> GOran brought this up in our chat. They want us to respond. Beg for >>>>> more time if we must.... >>>>> >>>>> cheers Steph >>>>> On 2019-06-12 19:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the response. >>>>> I think we still have time respond. This is page where the >>>>> consultation was announced for the first time >>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-call-to-action >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 00:10 farzaneh badii >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> as far as I remember we had another member there but he was never >>>>>> active. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which questionnaire do you mean? Do you mean the one I attached here? >>>>>> Do we still have time for that? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:54 PM Rafik Dammak >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have 2 action items regarding IRP standing panel , starting with >>>>>>> adding more volunteers to the implementation oversight team (I think only >>>>>>> Robin is participating there) . >>>>>>> We still also have to give our input and respond to the >>>>>>> questionnaire. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>> From: Drazek, Keith via council >>>>>>> Date: Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 23:49 >>>>>>> Subject: [council] IRP IoT and IRP Standing Panel -- Please Review >>>>>>> To: Donna.Austin at team.neustar >>>>>>> , gbunton at tucows.com , >>>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca , >>>>>>> claudia.selli at intl.att.com , >>>>>>> Brian at Winterfeldt.law >>>>>>> , wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de < >>>>>>> wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, bruna.mrtns at gmail.com < >>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>, joankerr at fbsc.org >>>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org , >>>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Chairs, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope this note finds you well as we rapidly approach ICANN 65. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In Marrakech, one of the topics we are likely to discuss and hear >>>>>>> about from the ICANN Board is the work of the Independent Review Process >>>>>>> (IRP) Implementation Oversight Team (IoT) and the need for the community to >>>>>>> focus on the appointment of an IRP Standing Panel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two distinct items will require GNSO and SG/C consideration: The >>>>>>> first is a need to repopulate the current IoT, which began with about 25 >>>>>>> members several years ago, but has dwindled in active participation. >>>>>>> Second, the ICANN community will be required to contribute to the >>>>>>> discussions around the appointment of members to a Standing Panel. This is >>>>>>> a critical bylaw obligation and must be made a GNSO priority during the >>>>>>> second half of 2019. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please include this topic in your agenda planning for Marrakech and >>>>>>> for future SG/C meetings, so the GNSO Council can be well-informed of your >>>>>>> respective views. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keith >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> council mailing list >>>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of >>>>>>> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>>>>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >>>>>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the >>>>>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, >>>>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling >>>>>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 Wed Jul 3 00:49:27 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 06:49:27 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] council vice-chair position for next year In-Reply-To: <16C89A09-4D9D-47B0-ABA1-7167B9F22F03@ipjustice.org> References: <8B53E8B7-452E-4EF6-AA79-D741E9DEB36C@benin2point0.org> <16C89A09-4D9D-47B0-ABA1-7167B9F22F03@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: thanks all for your messages. I will respond to CSG Excom to share that I would be happy to continue for one more year. Best, Rafik Le dim. 30 juin 2019 ? 02:11, Robin Gross a ?crit : > [Also just an Observer here] > > Yes, Rafik, you should continue to serve as vice-chair to the NCPH. You > have done an incredible job in that role for the entire NCPH, while also > serving NCSG with excellence for many years. > > Best, > Robin > > > On Jun 29, 2019, at 3:16 AM, Farell FOLLY wrote: > > Dear Rafik, > > This is just one more proof that you have been a valuable person. I think > you should go for it. It is sad that you haven?t been elected Chair. > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > (Ekue) Farell FOLLY > NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > On 26 Jun 2019, at 18:42, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > As I just shared in NCSG session few minutes ago, I was approached this > week by several representatives from CSG asking if I would consider running > for one more year as vice-chair from NCPH. The usual practice is to have > alternating after 2 years between CSG and NCSG. Tbh I didn't think at all > about before as I was expecting to finish my term by this year AGM and I > have to consider this carefully. > I should respond to CSG asap and I need NCSG support and endorsement > first. > > Best, > > Rafik > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jul 3 03:35:38 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:35:38 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Letter on ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs Message-ID: Hi all, there was communication from Cyrus Nemazi to all SO/AC/SG/C regarding the assumptions ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/readiness-support-future-rounds-new-gtlds-07jun19-en.pdf) for the implementation of subpro policy recommendations and new round for gTLD https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/namazi-to-perrin-17jun19-en.pdf . the letter is asking for engagement with NCSG. For those who attended the GNSO Council wrap-up session last week, there was discussion on how the council should deal with this request and leaving it to SG/C instead. I am asking here if we need a meeting with Cyrus and his team after reviewing the implementation assumptions. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jul 3 13:22:32 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 19:22:32 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Call for volunteers IRP-IOT and proposed Council endorsement process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, due the Board BAMC initiated process for IRP IOT, we got to encourage people to join it and get them vetted. The involvement of BAMC is definitely concerning. candidates can submitted directly and without getting any SO/AC support. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- De : Nathalie Peregrine Date: mer. 3 juil. 2019 ? 19:18 Subject: [council] Call for volunteers IRP-IOT and proposed Council endorsement process To: council at gnso.icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Dear Council Members, SG/C Chairs, As you may be aware, the ICANN Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) recently launched a call for volunteers to recompose the Independent Review Process (IRP) Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-to-siddiqui-et-al-26jun19-en.pdf [icann.org] ). The letter also notes that ?if any SO/AC wishes to vet candidates through its own candidate selection process, the BAMC welcomes that work, diligence, and indication of support when passing the candidate further into the process?. As during recent discussions, Council members as well as GNSO community members have highlighted the importance of this process and the need for the GNSO to contribute candidates with expertise to this process, Council leadership would like to propose the following steps: 1. Any candidates interested in GNSO Council endorsement should send their Expressions of Interest describing how his or her experience aligns with the skills identified, as well as a commitment to the estimated time demands to gnso-secs at icann.org by Friday 12 July 2019. 2. Council leadership will evaluate the applications against the skills and experience outlined in the call for volunteers (see also below). 3. Council leadership will share with the Council the proposed candidates for GNSO Council endorsement by 17 July 2019 at the latest. 4. Council to consider proposed candidates for endorsement during 18 July 2019 GNSO Council meeting. 5. GNSO Secretariat to submit EOIs of endorsed candidates by 31 July 2019 at the latest. 6. All the EOIs of the candidates that meet the qualifications will be provided to the BAMC for evaluation and identification of new members. If you have any questions or concerns about this proposed process, please let us know as soon as possible. We appreciate that the timeline is short, but we hope this will not prevent you from encouraging members who have the required skills and experience from applying. To be clear, nothing prevents those not seeking GNSO Council endorsement from submitting their applications directly to the BAMC. With best regards, Pam Little and Rafik Dammak, Vice Chairs, GNSO Council On behalf of GNSO Council Leadership From https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-to-siddiqui-et-al-26jun19-en.pdf [icann.org] *Skills and Experience Required * The IOT has very important work remaining, including the finalization of a set of Updated Supplementary Procedures that will define the conduct of IRPs and assure that the purposes of the IRP are upheld. These Procedures must also align with principles of international arbitration. As a result, those members of our community that you identify and encourage to join the IOT, should have the necessary legal or judicial skills and experience in disputes such as IRPs, arbitrations, or other alternate dispute resolution processes. Specific familiarity with ICANN?s accountability mechanisms is another important skill that we hope to see amongst new members. No single candidate must bring all of this experience, but as we look at the IOT as a whole, we are striving for a variety of experiences that, taken together, make the IOT well-suited to finalize a set of procedures to conduct IRP proceedings. IOT members must also have the time and availability to attend at least a one hour call each week to participate on IOT telephonic meetings, as well as sufficient availability to contribute to the work online. *Marika Konings* *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages . * _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-secs mailing list Gnso-secs at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-secs _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=nB8wjB51BCGkGoYf3d1QMu8BvYola3KUSkUARFf64_Q&s=U3NJe9J5hBUO3H-601ieLRHfzVVD27U7NpM0ij00GCE&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=nB8wjB51BCGkGoYf3d1QMu8BvYola3KUSkUARFf64_Q&s=txBkvynJCaCkQ3kFudvB0fGSKt--CBEda9OpMhFcTBc&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. From elsa.saade at gmail.com Wed Jul 3 21:00:30 2019 From: elsa.saade at gmail.com (Elsa S) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:00:30 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Letter on ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think it would be worthwhile, assuming our comments and discussions will not be pushed aside and would only stand as a ?discussion with all counterparts in the multistakeholder community? only. With a new coordination group from NCSG to the subpro, I think we could possibly organize for a call and discuss this at length if unanimous agreement is found on this! E. ? On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:35 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > there was communication from Cyrus Nemazi to all SO/AC/SG/C regarding the > assumptions ( > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/readiness-support-future-rounds-new-gtlds-07jun19-en.pdf) > for the implementation of subpro policy recommendations and new round for > gTLD > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/namazi-to-perrin-17jun19-en.pdf > . > > the letter is asking for engagement with NCSG. For those who attended the > GNSO Council wrap-up session last week, there was discussion on how the > council should deal with this request and leaving it to SG/C instead. > > I am asking here if we need a meeting with Cyrus and his team after > reviewing the implementation assumptions. > > 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 Thu Jul 4 01:16:05 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 07:16:05 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Letter on ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Elsa, thanks for the response. that is the point. we have to follow-up the full lifecycle of a PDP starting with the charter and scoping till implementation and then review in order to be effective and influential. for those who followed the new gTLD PDP can tell how the differences existed in the AGB and what policy matters were added during the implementation. so we can either invite to one of our policy call or having a 1 hours dedicated webinar with Cyrus and his team. but in any case we need to be prepared and do our homework. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 03:00, Elsa S a ?crit : > I think it would be worthwhile, assuming our comments and discussions will > not be pushed aside and would only stand as a ?discussion with all > counterparts in the multistakeholder community? only. > > With a new coordination group from NCSG to the subpro, I think we could > possibly organize for a call and discuss this at length if unanimous > agreement is found on this! > > E. > ? > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:35 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> there was communication from Cyrus Nemazi to all SO/AC/SG/C regarding the >> assumptions ( >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/readiness-support-future-rounds-new-gtlds-07jun19-en.pdf) >> for the implementation of subpro policy recommendations and new round for >> gTLD >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/namazi-to-perrin-17jun19-en.pdf >> . >> >> the letter is asking for engagement with NCSG. For those who attended the >> GNSO Council wrap-up session last week, there was discussion on how the >> council should deal with this request and leaving it to SG/C instead. >> >> I am asking here if we need a meeting with Cyrus and his team after >> reviewing the implementation assumptions. >> >> 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 Thu Jul 4 01:45:28 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 07:45:28 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline (which was already extended) Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- De : Ayden F?rdeline Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document To: Dear all, As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how Whois can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase 2 of its work. The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the EPDP Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) the system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the Temporary Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft to this input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look at the document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, questions, or suggested edits: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 July, so your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your understanding. Kind regards, Ayden F?rdeline on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Fri Jul 5 22:14:10 2019 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 15:14:10 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Letter on ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58417796-b61f-c19e-77de-769a501a95f7@kathykleiman.com> The problem here is that Jeff and SubPro are trying to change the underlying assumptions that ICANN Org is using to build its systems (to process New gTLDs). Our problem is not with ICANN Org (from what I can see), but with Jeff who as chair of SubPro WG (who represents certain very aggressive registries) wants to lift the current cap of 1000 new gTLDs a year, force ICANN Org to accept unlimited changes to the New /gTLD /applications, etc. These changes to the rules of new gTLD applications will wreak havoc in the system. In this case, from what I can see, ICANN Org, NCSG and the larger Community have the same interest -- we are collectively part of the group which /reviews new gtld //applications. /We will be reading them, filing comments and concerns, raising objections, and exercising other oversight -- all time consuming and sometimes expensive processes. We need time to do our jobs properly, and not a ridiculous number of applications.? ICANN Org is saying similar things.? These themes was central to the NCSG comments prepared by Bruna and Elsa and submitted to SubPro WG months ago. Our concerns, I think, are not with ICANN Org (and I went to their meeting with both SubPro and the GAC), but with Jeff and the registries who want to change many of the rules.? If he can force rule changes through SubPro WG, ICANN Org will have to follow. Meetings of SubPro WG this Monday and Thursday, including raising the limits of applications to (potentially) thousands a year (when ICANN Org is preparing for up to 1000 per year) and "global public interest" (voluntary commitments including censorship). Best, Kathy On 7/3/2019 2:00 PM, Elsa S wrote: > I think it would be worthwhile, assuming our comments and discussions > will not be pushed aside and would only stand as a ?discussion with > all counterparts in the multistakeholder community? only. > > With a new coordination group from NCSG to the subpro, I think we > could possibly organize for a call and discuss this at length if > unanimous agreement is found on this! > > E. > ? > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:35 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi all, > > there was communication from Cyrus Nemazi to all SO/AC/SG/C > regarding the assumptions > (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/readiness-support-future-rounds-new-gtlds-07jun19-en.pdf) > for the implementation of subpro policy recommendations and new > round for gTLD > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/namazi-to-perrin-17jun19-en.pdf > . > > the letter is asking for engagement with NCSG. For those who > attended the GNSO Council wrap-up session last?week, there was > discussion on how the council should deal with this request and > leaving it to SG/C instead. > > I am asking here if we need a meeting with Cyrus and his team > after reviewing the implementation assumptions. > > 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 icann at ferdeline.com Sat Jul 6 19:10:56 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2019 16:10:56 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> Hi, I have not endorsed the contents of this document because I was involved in drafting it. But I hope other members of the Policy Committee can review it as a matter of priority and advise if it can be submitted or not. The due date is Monday, 8 July. Thanks. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline (which was already extended) > > Best, > > Rafik > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > De : Ayden F?rdeline > Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document > To: > > Dear all, > > As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how Whois can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase 2 of its work. > > The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the EPDP Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) the system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the Temporary Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. > > The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft to this input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look at the document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, questions, or suggested edits: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing > > Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 July, so your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your understanding. > > Kind regards, > > Ayden F?rdeline > on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 01:49:43 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 18:49:43 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> References: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: (Observer) I have commented on this draft. I don't see my comments responded to and resolved. Basically I think if Stephanie with her expertise in data protection doesn?t get the time to look at it to see if the answers that have invoked GDPR are correct, then we run the risk of having answered the questions invoking the wrong articles and providing the wrong rational. we can submit without answering those questions that invoke GDPR specific articles. I think I have flagged them in the document but will have a look again. On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi, > > I have not endorsed the contents of this document because I was involved > in drafting it. > > But I hope other members of the Policy Committee can review it as a matter > of priority and advise if it can be submitted or not. The due date is > Monday, 8 July. Thanks. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:45, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi all, > > this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline (which > was already extended) > > Best, > > Rafik > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > De : *Ayden F?rdeline* > Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document > To: > > > Dear all, > > As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how Whois > can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase 2 of > its work. > > The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the EPDP > Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) the > system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the Temporary > Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. > > The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft to this > input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look at the > document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, questions, > or suggested edits: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing > > Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 July, so > your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your > understanding. > > Kind regards, > > Ayden F?rdeline > on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jul 8 01:52:27 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2019 22:52:27 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: References: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I did not resolve the comments in the Google Doc by pressing the 'resolve' button, but I did respond to the comment offering a suggested path forward, i.e. refer broadly to Article 6 of the GDPR. Please let me know if this alternative language would work? But I agree it would be great to get all members of the EPDP team to look over this document to make sure its sound, so I hope others can review it as a matter of priority. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Sunday, 7 July 2019 23:49, farzaneh badii wrote: > (Observer) I have commented on this draft. I don't see my comments responded to and resolved. Basically I think if Stephanie with her expertise in data protection doesn?t get the time to look at it to see if the answers that have invoked GDPR are correct, then we run the risk of having answered the questions invoking the wrong articles and providing the wrong rational. we can submit without answering those questions that invoke GDPR specific articles. I think I have flagged them in the document but will have a look again. > > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have not endorsed the contents of this document because I was involved in drafting it. >> >> But I hope other members of the Policy Committee can review it as a matter of priority and advise if it can be submitted or not. The due date is Monday, 8 July. Thanks. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline (which was already extended) >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> De : Ayden F?rdeline >>> Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 >>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document >>> To: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how Whois can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase 2 of its work. >>> >>> The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the EPDP Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) the system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the Temporary Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. >>> >>> The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft to this input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look at the document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, questions, or suggested edits: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 July, so your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your understanding. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 08:12:56 2019 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 07:12:56 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: References: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <4AC602AD-CB35-4B27-8DAD-12B2043CC4EC@gmail.com> I do not want to delay submission of this input document so would advise submitting if all our EPDP representatives (our subject matter experts) are happy with its content! Sent from my iPhone > On 08 Jul 2019, at 00:52, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I did not resolve the comments in the Google Doc by pressing the 'resolve' button, but I did respond to the comment offering a suggested path forward, i.e. refer broadly to Article 6 of the GDPR. Please let me know if this alternative language would work? But I agree it would be great to get all members of the EPDP team to look over this document to make sure its sound, so I hope others can review it as a matter of priority. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Sunday, 7 July 2019 23:49, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> (Observer) I have commented on this draft. I don't see my comments responded to and resolved. Basically I think if Stephanie with her expertise in data protection doesn?t get the time to look at it to see if the answers that have invoked GDPR are correct, then we run the risk of having answered the questions invoking the wrong articles and providing the wrong rational. we can submit without answering those questions that invoke GDPR specific articles. I think I have flagged them in the document but will have a look again. >> >>> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have not endorsed the contents of this document because I was involved in drafting it. >>> >>> But I hope other members of the Policy Committee can review it as a matter of priority and advise if it can be submitted or not. The due date is Monday, 8 July. Thanks. >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline (which was already extended) >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>> De : Ayden F?rdeline >>>> Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 >>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document >>>> To: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how Whois can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase 2 of its work. >>>> >>>> The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the EPDP Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) the system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the Temporary Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. >>>> >>>> The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft to this input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look at the document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, questions, or suggested edits: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 July, so your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your understanding. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>> on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> -- >> Farzaneh > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Jul 8 19:43:13 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 16:43:13 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: <4AC602AD-CB35-4B27-8DAD-12B2043CC4EC@gmail.com> References: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> <4AC602AD-CB35-4B27-8DAD-12B2043CC4EC@gmail.com> Message-ID: Just a reminder that this is due today; please can PC members chime in on whether or not this may be submitted and propose edits (if necessary) ASAP. We won?t get another extension (this was originally due 21 June so it is our last chance to comment). Thanks. Ayden On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 02:12, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > I do not want to delay submission of this input document so would advise submitting if all our EPDP representatives (our subject matter experts) are happy with its content! > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 08 Jul 2019, at 00:52, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> I did not resolve the comments in the Google Doc by pressing the 'resolve' button, but I did respond to the comment offering a suggested path forward, i.e. refer broadly to Article 6 of the GDPR. Please let me know if this alternative language would work? But I agree it would be great to get all members of the EPDP team to look over this document to make sure its sound, so I hope others can review it as a matter of priority. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Sunday, 7 July 2019 23:49, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>> (Observer) I have commented on this draft. I don't see my comments responded to and resolved. Basically I think if Stephanie with her expertise in data protection doesn?t get the time to look at it to see if the answers that have invoked GDPR are correct, then we run the risk of having answered the questions invoking the wrong articles and providing the wrong rational. we can submit without answering those questions that invoke GDPR specific articles. I think I have flagged them in the document but will have a look again. >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have not endorsed the contents of this document because I was involved in drafting it. >>>> >>>> But I hope other members of the Policy Committee can review it as a matter of priority and advise if it can be submitted or not. The due date is Monday, 8 July. Thanks. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline (which was already extended) >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> De : Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 >>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document >>>>> To: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how Whois can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase 2 of its work. >>>>> >>>>> The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the EPDP Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) the system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the Temporary Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. >>>>> >>>>> The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft to this input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look at the document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, questions, or suggested edits: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 July, so your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your understanding. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> -- >>> Farzaneh > >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 19:54:20 2019 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 18:54:20 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: References: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> <4AC602AD-CB35-4B27-8DAD-12B2043CC4EC@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ayden, Farzaneh, and all, I will support the submission once Stephanie says it?s okay to submit. I mean, this has my support once she says the document is ok. Thanks to Ayden and Farzaneh and others so much for working on this. Warm regards, Tanya On Mon 8. Jul 2019 at 18:43, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Just a reminder that this is due today; please can PC members chime in on > whether or not this may be submitted and propose edits (if necessary) ASAP. > We won?t get another extension (this was originally due 21 June so it is > our last chance to comment). Thanks. > > Ayden > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 02:12, Ars?ne Tungali > wrote: > > I do not want to delay submission of this input document so would advise > submitting if all our EPDP representatives (our subject matter experts) are > happy with its content! > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 08 Jul 2019, at 00:52, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I did not resolve the comments in the Google Doc by pressing the 'resolve' > button, but I did respond to the comment offering a suggested path forward, > i.e. refer broadly to Article 6 of the GDPR. Please let me know if this > alternative language would work? But I agree it would be great to get all > members of the EPDP team to look over this document to make sure its sound, > so I hope others can review it as a matter of priority. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Sunday, 7 July 2019 23:49, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > (Observer) I have commented on this draft. I don't see my comments > responded to and resolved. Basically I think if Stephanie with her > expertise in data protection doesn?t get the time to look at it to see if > the answers that have invoked GDPR are correct, then we run the risk of > having answered the questions invoking the wrong articles and providing the > wrong rational. we can submit without answering those questions that invoke > GDPR specific articles. I think I have flagged them in the document but > will have a look again. > > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have not endorsed the contents of this document because I was involved >> in drafting it. >> >> But I hope other members of the Policy Committee can review it as a >> matter of priority and advise if it can be submitted or not. The due date >> is Monday, 8 July. Thanks. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:45, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline >> (which was already extended) >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> De : *Ayden F?rdeline* >> Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document >> To: >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how Whois >> can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase 2 of >> its work. >> >> The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the EPDP >> Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) the >> system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the Temporary >> Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. >> >> The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft to >> this input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look at >> the document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, >> questions, or suggested edits: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 July, so >> your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your >> understanding. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- > Farzaneh > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 00:35:54 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 17:35:54 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: References: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi Ayden I had mentioned the problem of just citing Article 6 in my other comment on Google doc. But as I said I think it's ok to submit if Stephanie doesn't see there is an issue. On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 6:52 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I did not resolve the comments in the Google Doc by pressing the 'resolve' > button, but I did respond to the comment offering a suggested path forward, > i.e. refer broadly to Article 6 of the GDPR. Please let me know if this > alternative language would work? But I agree it would be great to get all > members of the EPDP team to look over this document to make sure its sound, > so I hope others can review it as a matter of priority. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Sunday, 7 July 2019 23:49, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > (Observer) I have commented on this draft. I don't see my comments > responded to and resolved. Basically I think if Stephanie with her > expertise in data protection doesn?t get the time to look at it to see if > the answers that have invoked GDPR are correct, then we run the risk of > having answered the questions invoking the wrong articles and providing the > wrong rational. we can submit without answering those questions that invoke > GDPR specific articles. I think I have flagged them in the document but > will have a look again. > > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have not endorsed the contents of this document because I was involved >> in drafting it. >> >> But I hope other members of the Policy Committee can review it as a >> matter of priority and advise if it can be submitted or not. The due date >> is Monday, 8 July. Thanks. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:45, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline >> (which was already extended) >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> De : *Ayden F?rdeline* >> Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document >> To: >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how Whois >> can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase 2 of >> its work. >> >> The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the EPDP >> Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) the >> system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the Temporary >> Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. >> >> The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft to >> this input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look at >> the document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, >> questions, or suggested edits: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 July, so >> your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your >> understanding. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- > Farzaneh > > > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 9 00:37:46 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 21:37:46 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: References: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Thanks Farzi, Stephanie has just added a huge of (very good) edits to the document, so I think it is in better shape now https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday, 8 July 2019 22:35, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi Ayden > > I had mentioned the problem of just citing Article 6 in my other comment on Google doc. But as I said I think it's ok to submit if Stephanie doesn't see there is an issue. > > On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 6:52 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> I did not resolve the comments in the Google Doc by pressing the 'resolve' button, but I did respond to the comment offering a suggested path forward, i.e. refer broadly to Article 6 of the GDPR. Please let me know if this alternative language would work? But I agree it would be great to get all members of the EPDP team to look over this document to make sure its sound, so I hope others can review it as a matter of priority. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Sunday, 7 July 2019 23:49, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>> (Observer) I have commented on this draft. I don't see my comments responded to and resolved. Basically I think if Stephanie with her expertise in data protection doesn?t get the time to look at it to see if the answers that have invoked GDPR are correct, then we run the risk of having answered the questions invoking the wrong articles and providing the wrong rational. we can submit without answering those questions that invoke GDPR specific articles. I think I have flagged them in the document but will have a look again. >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have not endorsed the contents of this document because I was involved in drafting it. >>>> >>>> But I hope other members of the Policy Committee can review it as a matter of priority and advise if it can be submitted or not. The due date is Monday, 8 July. Thanks. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline (which was already extended) >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> De : Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 >>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document >>>>> To: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how Whois can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase 2 of its work. >>>>> >>>>> The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the EPDP Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) the system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the Temporary Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. >>>>> >>>>> The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft to this input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look at the document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, questions, or suggested edits: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 July, so your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your understanding. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> -- >>> Farzaneh > > -- > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 00:53:24 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 17:53:24 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: References: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Thanks. I can see the edits. My concern considering we invoke Article 6 for providing legal bases for third party disclosure remains but I guess we can discuss those issues at EPDP. I suggest that we also carry out a legitimate interest assessment.. all the use cases that invoke 6(1)(f) should actually do a legitimate interest assessment test. It is not too difficult. We can invoke their favorite data protection authority method: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/how-do-we-apply-legitimate-interests-in-practice/ Farzaneh On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:37 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thanks Farzi, Stephanie has just added a huge of (very good) edits to the > document, so I think it is in better shape now > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Monday, 8 July 2019 22:35, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > Hi Ayden > > I had mentioned the problem of just citing Article 6 in my other comment > on Google doc. But as I said I think it's ok to submit if Stephanie doesn't > see there is an issue. > > > On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 6:52 PM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> I did not resolve the comments in the Google Doc by pressing the >> 'resolve' button, but I did respond to the comment offering a suggested >> path forward, i.e. refer broadly to Article 6 of the GDPR. Please let me >> know if this alternative language would work? But I agree it would be great >> to get all members of the EPDP team to look over this document to make sure >> its sound, so I hope others can review it as a matter of priority. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Sunday, 7 July 2019 23:49, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >> (Observer) I have commented on this draft. I don't see my comments >> responded to and resolved. Basically I think if Stephanie with her >> expertise in data protection doesn?t get the time to look at it to see if >> the answers that have invoked GDPR are correct, then we run the risk of >> having answered the questions invoking the wrong articles and providing the >> wrong rational. we can submit without answering those questions that invoke >> GDPR specific articles. I think I have flagged them in the document but >> will have a look again. >> >> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have not endorsed the contents of this document because I was involved >>> in drafting it. >>> >>> But I hope other members of the Policy Committee can review it as a >>> matter of priority and advise if it can be submitted or not. The due date >>> is Monday, 8 July. Thanks. >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:45, Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline >>> (which was already extended) >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> De : *Ayden F?rdeline* >>> Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 >>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document >>> To: >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how Whois >>> can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase 2 of >>> its work. >>> >>> The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the EPDP >>> Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) the >>> system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the Temporary >>> Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. >>> >>> The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft to >>> this input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look at >>> the document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, >>> questions, or suggested edits: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 July, so >>> your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your >>> understanding. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> >> >> -- > Farzaneh > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 9 00:58:49 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 21:58:49 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: References: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: There are some more edits now; the final language is in the attached PDF, and I think Stephanie has done a good job at noting the limitations of Article 6. I plan to submit the attached file on behalf of the NCSG EPDP team in 30 minutes time, unless I am directed otherwise. Thanks! Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday, 8 July 2019 22:53, farzaneh badii wrote: > Thanks. I can see the edits. My concern considering we invoke Article 6 for providing legal bases for third party disclosure remains but I guess we can discuss those issues at EPDP. > > I suggest that we also carry out a legitimate interest assessment.. all the use cases that invoke 6(1)(f) should actually do a legitimate interest assessment test. It is not too difficult. We can invoke their favorite data protection authority method: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/how-do-we-apply-legitimate-interests-in-practice/ > > Farzaneh > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:37 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Thanks Farzi, Stephanie has just added a huge of (very good) edits to the document, so I think it is in better shape now >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Monday, 8 July 2019 22:35, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden >>> >>> I had mentioned the problem of just citing Article 6 in my other comment on Google doc. But as I said I think it's ok to submit if Stephanie doesn't see there is an issue. >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 6:52 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> I did not resolve the comments in the Google Doc by pressing the 'resolve' button, but I did respond to the comment offering a suggested path forward, i.e. refer broadly to Article 6 of the GDPR. Please let me know if this alternative language would work? But I agree it would be great to get all members of the EPDP team to look over this document to make sure its sound, so I hope others can review it as a matter of priority. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On Sunday, 7 July 2019 23:49, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> >>>>> (Observer) I have commented on this draft. I don't see my comments responded to and resolved. Basically I think if Stephanie with her expertise in data protection doesn?t get the time to look at it to see if the answers that have invoked GDPR are correct, then we run the risk of having answered the questions invoking the wrong articles and providing the wrong rational. we can submit without answering those questions that invoke GDPR specific articles. I think I have flagged them in the document but will have a look again. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have not endorsed the contents of this document because I was involved in drafting it. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I hope other members of the Policy Committee can review it as a matter of priority and advise if it can be submitted or not. The due date is Monday, 8 July. Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline (which was already extended) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>> De : Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 >>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document >>>>>>> To: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how Whois can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase 2 of its work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the EPDP Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) the system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the Temporary Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft to this input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look at the document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, questions, or suggested edits: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 July, so your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your understanding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>> >>> -- >>> Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EPDP Team Phase 2 - SO AC SG C Input Template - NCSG Input.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 127149 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 01:05:55 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 07:05:55 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: References: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, Don't submit yet. The deadline is not 23:59 UTC. Rafik On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 06:58 Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > There are some more edits now; the final language is in the attached PDF, > and I think Stephanie has done a good job at noting the limitations of > Article 6. I plan to submit the attached file on behalf of the NCSG EPDP > team in 30 minutes time, unless I am directed otherwise. Thanks! > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Monday, 8 July 2019 22:53, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > Thanks. I can see the edits. My concern considering we invoke Article 6 > for providing legal bases for third party disclosure remains but I guess we > can discuss those issues at EPDP. > > I suggest that we also carry out a legitimate interest assessment.. all > the use cases that invoke 6(1)(f) should actually do a legitimate interest > assessment test. It is not too difficult. We can invoke their favorite data > protection authority method: > https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/how-do-we-apply-legitimate-interests-in-practice/ > > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:37 PM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> Thanks Farzi, Stephanie has just added a huge of (very good) edits to the >> document, so I think it is in better shape now >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Monday, 8 July 2019 22:35, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >> Hi Ayden >> >> I had mentioned the problem of just citing Article 6 in my other comment >> on Google doc. But as I said I think it's ok to submit if Stephanie doesn't >> see there is an issue. >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 6:52 PM Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> I did not resolve the comments in the Google Doc by pressing the >>> 'resolve' button, but I did respond to the comment offering a suggested >>> path forward, i.e. refer broadly to Article 6 of the GDPR. Please let me >>> know if this alternative language would work? But I agree it would be great >>> to get all members of the EPDP team to look over this document to make sure >>> its sound, so I hope others can review it as a matter of priority. >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On Sunday, 7 July 2019 23:49, farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>> (Observer) I have commented on this draft. I don't see my comments >>> responded to and resolved. Basically I think if Stephanie with her >>> expertise in data protection doesn?t get the time to look at it to see if >>> the answers that have invoked GDPR are correct, then we run the risk of >>> having answered the questions invoking the wrong articles and providing the >>> wrong rational. we can submit without answering those questions that invoke >>> GDPR specific articles. I think I have flagged them in the document but >>> will have a look again. >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have not endorsed the contents of this document because I was >>>> involved in drafting it. >>>> >>>> But I hope other members of the Policy Committee can review it as a >>>> matter of priority and advise if it can be submitted or not. The due date >>>> is Monday, 8 July. Thanks. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:45, Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline >>>> (which was already extended) >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>> De : *Ayden F?rdeline* >>>> Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 >>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document >>>> To: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how Whois >>>> can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase 2 of >>>> its work. >>>> >>>> The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the EPDP >>>> Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) the >>>> system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the Temporary >>>> Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. >>>> >>>> The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft to >>>> this input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look at >>>> the document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, >>>> questions, or suggested edits: >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 July, so >>>> your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your >>>> understanding. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>> on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> -- >> Farzaneh >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 9 01:16:57 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 22:16:57 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: References: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Ok, I will leave you/someone else to submit it then, as I will not be online at that time. Thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday, 8 July 2019 23:05, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > Don't submit yet. The deadline is not 23:59 UTC. > > Rafik > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 06:58 Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> There are some more edits now; the final language is in the attached PDF, and I think Stephanie has done a good job at noting the limitations of Article 6. I plan to submit the attached file on behalf of the NCSG EPDP team in 30 minutes time, unless I am directed otherwise. Thanks! >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Monday, 8 July 2019 22:53, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >>> Thanks. I can see the edits. My concern considering we invoke Article 6 for providing legal bases for third party disclosure remains but I guess we can discuss those issues at EPDP. >>> >>> I suggest that we also carry out a legitimate interest assessment.. all the use cases that invoke 6(1)(f) should actually do a legitimate interest assessment test. It is not too difficult. We can invoke their favorite data protection authority method: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/how-do-we-apply-legitimate-interests-in-practice/ >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:37 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Farzi, Stephanie has just added a huge of (very good) edits to the document, so I think it is in better shape now >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On Monday, 8 July 2019 22:35, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden >>>>> >>>>> I had mentioned the problem of just citing Article 6 in my other comment on Google doc. But as I said I think it's ok to submit if Stephanie doesn't see there is an issue. >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 6:52 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I did not resolve the comments in the Google Doc by pressing the 'resolve' button, but I did respond to the comment offering a suggested path forward, i.e. refer broadly to Article 6 of the GDPR. Please let me know if this alternative language would work? But I agree it would be great to get all members of the EPDP team to look over this document to make sure its sound, so I hope others can review it as a matter of priority. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On Sunday, 7 July 2019 23:49, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> (Observer) I have commented on this draft. I don't see my comments responded to and resolved. Basically I think if Stephanie with her expertise in data protection doesn?t get the time to look at it to see if the answers that have invoked GDPR are correct, then we run the risk of having answered the questions invoking the wrong articles and providing the wrong rational. we can submit without answering those questions that invoke GDPR specific articles. I think I have flagged them in the document but will have a look again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have not endorsed the contents of this document because I was involved in drafting it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I hope other members of the Policy Committee can review it as a matter of priority and advise if it can be submitted or not. The due date is Monday, 8 July. Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline (which was already extended) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>>>> De : Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>>> Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 >>>>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document >>>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how Whois can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase 2 of its work. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the EPDP Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) the system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the Temporary Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft to this input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look at the document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, questions, or suggested edits: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 July, so your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your understanding. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>>> on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 01:42:05 2019 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 00:42:05 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: References: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: All, If you need PC support for its submissions, I reiterate mine ? now after Steph made edits it looks like ready to me. Cheers, Tanya On Tue 9. Jul 2019 at 00:17, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Ok, I will leave you/someone else to submit it then, as I will not be > online at that time. > > Thanks, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Monday, 8 July 2019 23:05, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > Don't submit yet. The deadline is not 23:59 UTC. > > Rafik > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 06:58 Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> There are some more edits now; the final language is in the attached PDF, >> and I think Stephanie has done a good job at noting the limitations of >> Article 6. I plan to submit the attached file on behalf of the NCSG EPDP >> team in 30 minutes time, unless I am directed otherwise. Thanks! >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Monday, 8 July 2019 22:53, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >> Thanks. I can see the edits. My concern considering we invoke Article 6 >> for providing legal bases for third party disclosure remains but I guess we >> can discuss those issues at EPDP. >> >> I suggest that we also carry out a legitimate interest assessment.. all >> the use cases that invoke 6(1)(f) should actually do a legitimate interest >> assessment test. It is not too difficult. We can invoke their favorite data >> protection authority method: >> https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/how-do-we-apply-legitimate-interests-in-practice/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:37 PM Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Farzi, Stephanie has just added a huge of (very good) edits to >>> the document, so I think it is in better shape now >>> >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On Monday, 8 July 2019 22:35, farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ayden >>> >>> I had mentioned the problem of just citing Article 6 in my other comment >>> on Google doc. But as I said I think it's ok to submit if Stephanie doesn't >>> see there is an issue. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 6:52 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I did not resolve the comments in the Google Doc by pressing the >>>> 'resolve' button, but I did respond to the comment offering a suggested >>>> path forward, i.e. refer broadly to Article 6 of the GDPR. Please let me >>>> know if this alternative language would work? But I agree it would be great >>>> to get all members of the EPDP team to look over this document to make sure >>>> its sound, so I hope others can review it as a matter of priority. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On Sunday, 7 July 2019 23:49, farzaneh badii >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> (Observer) I have commented on this draft. I don't see my comments >>>> responded to and resolved. Basically I think if Stephanie with her >>>> expertise in data protection doesn?t get the time to look at it to see if >>>> the answers that have invoked GDPR are correct, then we run the risk of >>>> having answered the questions invoking the wrong articles and providing the >>>> wrong rational. we can submit without answering those questions that invoke >>>> GDPR specific articles. I think I have flagged them in the document but >>>> will have a look again. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I have not endorsed the contents of this document because I was >>>>> involved in drafting it. >>>>> >>>>> But I hope other members of the Policy Committee can review it as a >>>>> matter of priority and advise if it can be submitted or not. The due date >>>>> is Monday, 8 July. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:45, Rafik Dammak >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline >>>>> (which was already extended) >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> De : *Ayden F?rdeline* >>>>> Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 >>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input >>>>> Document >>>>> To: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how >>>>> Whois can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase >>>>> 2 of its work. >>>>> >>>>> The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the EPDP >>>>> Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) the >>>>> system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the Temporary >>>>> Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. >>>>> >>>>> The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft to >>>>> this input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look at >>>>> the document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, >>>>> questions, or suggested edits: >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 July, >>>>> so your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your >>>>> understanding. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 01:51:03 2019 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 19:51:03 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: References: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I fully support, endorse and thank all involved in such an decisive document for NCSG. Saludos, Martin On Mon, Jul 8, 2019, 7:42 PM Tatiana Tropina wrote: > All, > If you need PC support for its submissions, I reiterate mine ? now after > Steph made edits it looks like ready to me. > Cheers, > Tanya > > On Tue 9. Jul 2019 at 00:17, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Ok, I will leave you/someone else to submit it then, as I will not be >> online at that time. >> >> Thanks, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Monday, 8 July 2019 23:05, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Don't submit yet. The deadline is not 23:59 UTC. >> >> Rafik >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 06:58 Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> There are some more edits now; the final language is in the attached >>> PDF, and I think Stephanie has done a good job at noting the limitations of >>> Article 6. I plan to submit the attached file on behalf of the NCSG EPDP >>> team in 30 minutes time, unless I am directed otherwise. Thanks! >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On Monday, 8 July 2019 22:53, farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks. I can see the edits. My concern considering we invoke Article 6 >>> for providing legal bases for third party disclosure remains but I guess we >>> can discuss those issues at EPDP. >>> >>> I suggest that we also carry out a legitimate interest assessment.. all >>> the use cases that invoke 6(1)(f) should actually do a legitimate interest >>> assessment test. It is not too difficult. We can invoke their favorite data >>> protection authority method: >>> https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/how-do-we-apply-legitimate-interests-in-practice/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:37 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Farzi, Stephanie has just added a huge of (very good) edits to >>>> the document, so I think it is in better shape now >>>> >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On Monday, 8 July 2019 22:35, farzaneh badii >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ayden >>>> >>>> I had mentioned the problem of just citing Article 6 in my other >>>> comment on Google doc. But as I said I think it's ok to submit if Stephanie >>>> doesn't see there is an issue. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 6:52 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I did not resolve the comments in the Google Doc by pressing the >>>>> 'resolve' button, but I did respond to the comment offering a suggested >>>>> path forward, i.e. refer broadly to Article 6 of the GDPR. Please let me >>>>> know if this alternative language would work? But I agree it would be great >>>>> to get all members of the EPDP team to look over this document to make sure >>>>> its sound, so I hope others can review it as a matter of priority. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On Sunday, 7 July 2019 23:49, farzaneh badii >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> (Observer) I have commented on this draft. I don't see my comments >>>>> responded to and resolved. Basically I think if Stephanie with her >>>>> expertise in data protection doesn?t get the time to look at it to see if >>>>> the answers that have invoked GDPR are correct, then we run the risk of >>>>> having answered the questions invoking the wrong articles and providing the >>>>> wrong rational. we can submit without answering those questions that invoke >>>>> GDPR specific articles. I think I have flagged them in the document but >>>>> will have a look again. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have not endorsed the contents of this document because I was >>>>>> involved in drafting it. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I hope other members of the Policy Committee can review it as a >>>>>> matter of priority and advise if it can be submitted or not. The due date >>>>>> is Monday, 8 July. Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:45, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline >>>>>> (which was already extended) >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>> De : *Ayden F?rdeline* >>>>>> Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 >>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input >>>>>> Document >>>>>> To: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how >>>>>> Whois can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase >>>>>> 2 of its work. >>>>>> >>>>>> The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the EPDP >>>>>> Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) the >>>>>> system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the Temporary >>>>>> Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. >>>>>> >>>>>> The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft to >>>>>> this input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look at >>>>>> the document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, >>>>>> questions, or suggested edits: >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >>>>>> Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 July, >>>>>> so your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your >>>>>> understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing 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 Jul 9 03:06:26 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 09:06:26 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: References: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: hi all, based on last responses and after quick review of the latest version, I think we can submit the comment. @Stephanie or any EPDP member here can do it? Best, Rafik Le mar. 9 juil. 2019 ? 07:51, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> a ?crit : > I fully support, endorse and thank all involved in such an decisive > document for NCSG. > > Saludos, > Martin > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019, 7:42 PM Tatiana Tropina > wrote: > >> All, >> If you need PC support for its submissions, I reiterate mine ? now after >> Steph made edits it looks like ready to me. >> Cheers, >> Tanya >> >> On Tue 9. Jul 2019 at 00:17, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> Ok, I will leave you/someone else to submit it then, as I will not be >>> online at that time. >>> >>> Thanks, Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On Monday, 8 July 2019 23:05, Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Don't submit yet. The deadline is not 23:59 UTC. >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 06:58 Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> There are some more edits now; the final language is in the attached >>>> PDF, and I think Stephanie has done a good job at noting the limitations of >>>> Article 6. I plan to submit the attached file on behalf of the NCSG EPDP >>>> team in 30 minutes time, unless I am directed otherwise. Thanks! >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On Monday, 8 July 2019 22:53, farzaneh badii >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks. I can see the edits. My concern considering we invoke Article >>>> 6 for providing legal bases for third party disclosure remains but I guess >>>> we can discuss those issues at EPDP. >>>> >>>> I suggest that we also carry out a legitimate interest assessment.. all >>>> the use cases that invoke 6(1)(f) should actually do a legitimate interest >>>> assessment test. It is not too difficult. We can invoke their favorite data >>>> protection authority method: >>>> https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/how-do-we-apply-legitimate-interests-in-practice/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:37 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Farzi, Stephanie has just added a huge of (very good) edits to >>>>> the document, so I think it is in better shape now >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On Monday, 8 July 2019 22:35, farzaneh badii >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ayden >>>>> >>>>> I had mentioned the problem of just citing Article 6 in my other >>>>> comment on Google doc. But as I said I think it's ok to submit if Stephanie >>>>> doesn't see there is an issue. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 6:52 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I did not resolve the comments in the Google Doc by pressing the >>>>>> 'resolve' button, but I did respond to the comment offering a suggested >>>>>> path forward, i.e. refer broadly to Article 6 of the GDPR. Please let me >>>>>> know if this alternative language would work? But I agree it would be great >>>>>> to get all members of the EPDP team to look over this document to make sure >>>>>> its sound, so I hope others can review it as a matter of priority. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On Sunday, 7 July 2019 23:49, farzaneh badii < >>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> (Observer) I have commented on this draft. I don't see my comments >>>>>> responded to and resolved. Basically I think if Stephanie with her >>>>>> expertise in data protection doesn?t get the time to look at it to see if >>>>>> the answers that have invoked GDPR are correct, then we run the risk of >>>>>> having answered the questions invoking the wrong articles and providing the >>>>>> wrong rational. we can submit without answering those questions that invoke >>>>>> GDPR specific articles. I think I have flagged them in the document but >>>>>> will have a look again. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have not endorsed the contents of this document because I was >>>>>>> involved in drafting it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I hope other members of the Policy Committee can review it as a >>>>>>> matter of priority and advise if it can be submitted or not. The due date >>>>>>> is Monday, 8 July. Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:45, Rafik Dammak < >>>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline >>>>>>> (which was already extended) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>> De : *Ayden F?rdeline* >>>>>>> Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 >>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input >>>>>>> Document >>>>>>> To: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how >>>>>>> Whois can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase >>>>>>> 2 of its work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the EPDP >>>>>>> Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) the >>>>>>> system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the Temporary >>>>>>> Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft >>>>>>> to this input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look >>>>>>> at the document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, >>>>>>> questions, or suggested edits: >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 July, >>>>>>> so your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your >>>>>>> understanding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.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: EPDP Team Phase 2 - SO AC SG C Input Template - NCSG Input.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 127149 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 03:09:50 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 09:09:50 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] IRP Standing Panel -- Please Review In-Reply-To: References: <6be494991c924af988b30f464c2ecfd9@verisign.com> Message-ID: Hi all, this is reminder about this response to IRP questionnaire https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EhgKD9GhzheUVBC740WrEszd7dc1JtHwg7Q1wTNYPX8/edit?usp=sharing we need to submit asap. Best, Rafik Le ven. 28 juin 2019 ? 00:13, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > it is reminder to all NCSG PC members to review the draft asap. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mer. 19 juin 2019 ? 05:34, farzaneh badii a > ?crit : > >> Hello Rafik >> >> I drafted a brief response to the 4 questions. I didn't know if you had >> prepared a google doc, sorry if I missed it. But the doc I prepared is >> here: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EhgKD9GhzheUVBC740WrEszd7dc1JtHwg7Q1wTNYPX8/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Farzaneh >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:36 PM Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I got this response from Sam in relation to my question about possible >>> extension: >>> >>> "The deadline had previously been moved from the beginning of May to May >>> 15, but we would be happy to receive any inputs from the NCSG when they are >>> available. Please submit to the publicly-archived email indicated and we >>> will include the NCSG?s inputs as we are continuing our analysis document." >>> >>> so we have last change to weigh in the process and submit a comment to >>> respond to the questions. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le lun. 17 juin 2019 ? 11:26, Rafik Dammak a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>> >>>> that is why I resent the reminder and communication from the council . >>>> it will be also discussed in Marrakech meeting. >>>> of course as it is not standard public comment, there is no indication >>>> of who is the right ICANN staff managing this (I assume it is legal >>>> counsel). I will reach Sam Eisner to check. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le sam. 15 juin 2019 ? 23:46, Stephanie Perrin < >>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> GOran brought this up in our chat. They want us to respond. Beg for >>>>> more time if we must.... >>>>> >>>>> cheers Steph >>>>> On 2019-06-12 19:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the response. >>>>> I think we still have time respond. This is page where the >>>>> consultation was announced for the first time >>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-call-to-action >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 00:10 farzaneh badii >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> as far as I remember we had another member there but he was never >>>>>> active. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which questionnaire do you mean? Do you mean the one I attached here? >>>>>> Do we still have time for that? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:54 PM Rafik Dammak >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have 2 action items regarding IRP standing panel , starting with >>>>>>> adding more volunteers to the implementation oversight team (I think only >>>>>>> Robin is participating there) . >>>>>>> We still also have to give our input and respond to the >>>>>>> questionnaire. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>> From: Drazek, Keith via council >>>>>>> Date: Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 23:49 >>>>>>> Subject: [council] IRP IoT and IRP Standing Panel -- Please Review >>>>>>> To: Donna.Austin at team.neustar >>>>>>> , gbunton at tucows.com , >>>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca , >>>>>>> claudia.selli at intl.att.com , >>>>>>> Brian at Winterfeldt.law >>>>>>> , wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de < >>>>>>> wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, bruna.mrtns at gmail.com < >>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>, joankerr at fbsc.org >>>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org , >>>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Chairs, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope this note finds you well as we rapidly approach ICANN 65. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In Marrakech, one of the topics we are likely to discuss and hear >>>>>>> about from the ICANN Board is the work of the Independent Review Process >>>>>>> (IRP) Implementation Oversight Team (IoT) and the need for the community to >>>>>>> focus on the appointment of an IRP Standing Panel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two distinct items will require GNSO and SG/C consideration: The >>>>>>> first is a need to repopulate the current IoT, which began with about 25 >>>>>>> members several years ago, but has dwindled in active participation. >>>>>>> Second, the ICANN community will be required to contribute to the >>>>>>> discussions around the appointment of members to a Standing Panel. This is >>>>>>> a critical bylaw obligation and must be made a GNSO priority during the >>>>>>> second half of 2019. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please include this topic in your agenda planning for Marrakech and >>>>>>> for future SG/C meetings, so the GNSO Council can be well-informed of your >>>>>>> respective views. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keith >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> council mailing list >>>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of >>>>>>> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>>>>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >>>>>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the >>>>>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, >>>>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling >>>>>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 04:37:38 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 21:37:38 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input Document In-Reply-To: References: <5jtznuyhwuMfvE5MgUfd2ZDfWPal_O6mB_-IYkCg3IJW31Yw_I150GnlNs7w_hMLtuDT9omtOTj73q8mfxpvoiTMBysdW_0JU0ITSXgAeJY=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: This comment was submitted, Stephanie cc'd. Best Farzaneh On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 8:06 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > hi all, > > based on last responses and after quick review of the latest version, I > think we can submit the comment. > @Stephanie or any EPDP member here can do it? > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 9 juil. 2019 ? 07:51, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> a ?crit : > >> I fully support, endorse and thank all involved in such an decisive >> document for NCSG. >> >> Saludos, >> Martin >> >> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019, 7:42 PM Tatiana Tropina >> wrote: >> >>> All, >>> If you need PC support for its submissions, I reiterate mine ? now after >>> Steph made edits it looks like ready to me. >>> Cheers, >>> Tanya >>> >>> On Tue 9. Jul 2019 at 00:17, Ayden F?rdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Ok, I will leave you/someone else to submit it then, as I will not be >>>> online at that time. >>>> >>>> Thanks, Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On Monday, 8 July 2019 23:05, Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Don't submit yet. The deadline is not 23:59 UTC. >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 06:58 Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> There are some more edits now; the final language is in the attached >>>>> PDF, and I think Stephanie has done a good job at noting the limitations of >>>>> Article 6. I plan to submit the attached file on behalf of the NCSG EPDP >>>>> team in 30 minutes time, unless I am directed otherwise. Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On Monday, 8 July 2019 22:53, farzaneh badii >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. I can see the edits. My concern considering we invoke Article >>>>> 6 for providing legal bases for third party disclosure remains but I guess >>>>> we can discuss those issues at EPDP. >>>>> >>>>> I suggest that we also carry out a legitimate interest assessment.. >>>>> all the use cases that invoke 6(1)(f) should actually do a legitimate >>>>> interest assessment test. It is not too difficult. We can invoke their >>>>> favorite data protection authority method: >>>>> https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/legitimate-interests/how-do-we-apply-legitimate-interests-in-practice/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:37 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Farzi, Stephanie has just added a huge of (very good) edits to >>>>>> the document, so I think it is in better shape now >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On Monday, 8 July 2019 22:35, farzaneh badii < >>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> I had mentioned the problem of just citing Article 6 in my other >>>>>> comment on Google doc. But as I said I think it's ok to submit if Stephanie >>>>>> doesn't see there is an issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 6:52 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I did not resolve the comments in the Google Doc by pressing the >>>>>>> 'resolve' button, but I did respond to the comment offering a suggested >>>>>>> path forward, i.e. refer broadly to Article 6 of the GDPR. Please let me >>>>>>> know if this alternative language would work? But I agree it would be great >>>>>>> to get all members of the EPDP team to look over this document to make sure >>>>>>> its sound, so I hope others can review it as a matter of priority. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>> On Sunday, 7 July 2019 23:49, farzaneh badii < >>>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Observer) I have commented on this draft. I don't see my comments >>>>>>> responded to and resolved. Basically I think if Stephanie with her >>>>>>> expertise in data protection doesn?t get the time to look at it to see if >>>>>>> the answers that have invoked GDPR are correct, then we run the risk of >>>>>>> having answered the questions invoking the wrong articles and providing the >>>>>>> wrong rational. we can submit without answering those questions that invoke >>>>>>> GDPR specific articles. I think I have flagged them in the document but >>>>>>> will have a look again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have not endorsed the contents of this document because I was >>>>>>>> involved in drafting it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I hope other members of the Policy Committee can review it as a >>>>>>>> matter of priority and advise if it can be submitted or not. The due date >>>>>>>> is Monday, 8 July. Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 23:45, Rafik Dammak < >>>>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> this need a swift action from PC: review and endorsment by deadline >>>>>>>> (which was already extended) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>>> De : *Ayden F?rdeline* >>>>>>>> Date: jeu. 4 juil. 2019 ? 07:43 >>>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [feedback requested] EPDP Phase 2 Input >>>>>>>> Document >>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As you might be aware, the EPDP (the working group looking at how >>>>>>>> Whois can be reformed to better safeguard privacy) has now commenced phase >>>>>>>> 2 of its work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The NCSG has been invited to offer its input to help inform the >>>>>>>> EPDP Team?s deliberations for phase 2 of its work, which will focus on 1) >>>>>>>> the system for accessing personal information, 2) the Annex to the >>>>>>>> Temporary Specification, and 3) issues deferred from phase 1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The NCSG's representatives to the EPDP have prepared a first draft >>>>>>>> to this input document, and we welcome your input here. Please take a look >>>>>>>> at the document here, and please let us know if you have any concerns, >>>>>>>> questions, or suggested edits: >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK5gp2hjABl29lLMzdlqSR0jWIOSQa-Oc4R_nzrUmqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Our deadline for submitting this to the EPDP team is Monday, 8 >>>>>>>> July, so your prompt review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for >>>>>>>> your understanding. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>> on behalf of the NCSG's representatives to the EPDP >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 9 21:20:51 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 18:20:51 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Loss of Adobe Connect In-Reply-To: References: <8mFSH4IhuHSuC6MfId1PzmGx-Vu2WWmkw_aIYwR9aJU1hMWz8NsmICywIrdFSDLO4JKaJEKZE8N8mHzPOGbQlkgaYZUqctVFNks9_V9rmPQ=@ferdeline.com> <05B00470-9EBD-46E2-892F-4ACB663EDD7F@Antel.com.uy> <18D9DEF2-8D56-4EB4-9257-F7C9A3026022@icann.org> Message-ID: <5-M8j_czncdSdQPlsZphph49OJiTElQtmDd0iS92En5qhel0KMsnTU6Lzyo08prtpUqxdXB52g09EjmAByJgrspNHV6fICu5equqOyRlGLc=@ferdeline.com> What a joke Typical of ICANN to make no contingencies to preserve records before migrating to a new tool Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Terri Agnew > Date: On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 15:18 > Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] Loss of Adobe Connect > To: Nathalie Peregrine ,Ayden F?rdeline > Cc: GNSO Council List > Dear Ayden and all, > > We will retain all our recordings by moving them internally. Requests for specific recordings will need to be made. > > Please reach out if anything is needed. > > Kind regards, > > Terri > > ?On 6/30/19, 3:48 PM, "council on behalf of Nathalie Peregrine" wrote: > > Dear Ayden, all, > > We will look into this and get back to you. > > Thank you! > > Nathalie > > On 6/30/19, 1:45 PM, "council on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline" wrote: > > Hello, > > Just to follow up on this message, is there an update available on how access to Adobe Connect recordings will be assured well into the future, so ICANN's archives remain complete? Thanks. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden F?rdeline > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Thursday, 4 April 2019 18:32, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Thanks for your responses. >> >> I appreciate that there is sometimes the need for change, and sometimes change can be a good thing. >> >> I have a few concerns though. >> >> Primarily, I am worried that we will lose many years of Adobe Connect archives, as many meetings are preserved only in the proprietary Adobe Connect format. >> >> The transcripts that ICANN produces are not always verbatim, and this only becomes apparent when one replays the Adobe Connect recording. For content like video, this is not preserved anywhere else on the ICANN website to the best of my knowledge, with the exception of a few high interest sessions that make the ICANN YouTube channel. And the Adobe Connect chat box is much easier to read, time stamped and in context, through the Adobe Connect player than it is as a text file. >> >> Do we have a way to be able to either 1) convert these Adobe Connect files to be viewable in another player (I think it is not possible, and I have been googling this today), or 2) to maintain a limited 'view only' Adobe Connect platform so that these recordings remain accessible? >> >> I also wonder what consultation was undertaken with the community before this decision to migrate to a new tool that we all use was made. I am concerned that many decisions which impact the community are being made in a top-down manner by ICANN org without adequate community consultation. >> >> I also wonder about the cost of migration and training. I do not think ICANN org measures the number of volunteer hours that are donated to it every year, but say, conservatively, there are 2,000 volunteers who need to spend 30 minutes downloading and learning Xoom, and perhaps more who need to ask a system administrator to install the program for them because of network settings. Does the cost to the community here exceed the small cost saving that the migration will achieve? >> >> Finally, I have had flashbacks to when Adobe Connect was unavailable last year, and I remember some meetings had issues with Xoom. For instance, one call organized by the BC and IPC to do with GDPR compliance had issues because more than 100 participants dialed in, and ICANN's license only allowed for 100 people to be in the room. I hope this issue has been addressed. I also found Xoom's interface to be not as good at allowing for real-time chat, document sharing, and seeing hands raised in a room. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Thursday, April 4, 2019 6:47 PM, Novoa, Osvaldo onovoa at Antel.com.uy wrote: >> >> > I share Michele?s opinion. >> > Regards, >> > Osvaldo >> > Enviado desde mi iPhone >> > El 4 abr. 2019, a la(s) 09:41, Michele Neylon - Blacknight escribi?: >> > I?ve used it with several other organisations and it?s fine. >> > Yes, it?s different to Adobe Connect, but that?s not a bad thing. People will need to get used to the UI, but the functionality is fine. >> > Regards >> > Michele >> > >> > Mr Michele Neylon >> > Blacknight Solutions >> > Hosting, Colocation & Domains >> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=sOTug2ypBl3mjNTGGAQGf8Yk-JjLtxHBzzhO0pIO4bg&s=JzofWiUQa6pDxw4z1O08F1Eoh8VDwYQLwUzoRDNCMCQ&e= >> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=sOTug2ypBl3mjNTGGAQGf8Yk-JjLtxHBzzhO0pIO4bg&s=D4KxYjCSngrGXvLoUCnIwgi-0aadW-MPPDKwUgUCss8&e= >> > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >> > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >> > Personal blog: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=sOTug2ypBl3mjNTGGAQGf8Yk-JjLtxHBzzhO0pIO4bg&s=KE-0rhR4ze796AcuE9fE41bOFdLpzTnSmwQs8jJmHbQ&e= >> > Some thoughts: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=sOTug2ypBl3mjNTGGAQGf8Yk-JjLtxHBzzhO0pIO4bg&s=n8KJ-GrrhTRmQCkHTpfBzXwBDrVrrtx3ZDVhkacdUwA&e= >> > >> > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >> > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >> > From: council on behalf of Ayden F?rdeline >> > Reply-To: Ayden F?rdeline >> > Date: Thursday 4 April 2019 at 11:19 >> > To: GNSO Council List >> > Subject: [council] Loss of Adobe Connect >> > Dear all, >> > ICANN has announcedhttps://www.icann.org/news/blog/transitioning-icann-s-remote-participation-platform-to-zoom that it will be rapidly transitioning away from the Adobe Connect platform to Zoom. I am not sure if there was consultation with other parts of the community, or if there is support for this decision, but I was hoping to hear from other Councillors as to whether or not they thought this decision would have implications on our work. I have used Zoom before and found the platform's interface to not be particularly intuitive, so I am worried. Perhaps someone could put me at ease that this will not be a consequential change. Thanks. >> > Best wishes, >> > Ayden >> > council mailing list >> > council at gnso.icann.orgmailto:council at gnso.icann.org >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >> > El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n >> > This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy. >> >> council mailing list >> council at gnso.icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=sOTug2ypBl3mjNTGGAQGf8Yk-JjLtxHBzzhO0pIO4bg&s=J8rZuipw0hRNig_oIAtfkYoQoXVIZHuNdcuy3J6_R_Q&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=sOTug2ypBl3mjNTGGAQGf8Yk-JjLtxHBzzhO0pIO4bg&s=T6HtflPm4NXFSV1_kTc_vntCsBrLlKFDDQa5trzNToM&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=CrnBc1PO1nYhboWtzti1lLLiXKUXdU6ymvdZe7npWIc&s=qKjjOfwv5eH71TtwbUDNnmWl6j-ack94lubj-rTuT9E&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=CrnBc1PO1nYhboWtzti1lLLiXKUXdU6ymvdZe7npWIc&s=ZFOqSwo2BlqpjEuZRy2-Mb6219ZUA48P621r03TTtHM&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jul 10 02:24:27 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 08:24:27 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] IRP Standing Panel -- Please Review In-Reply-To: References: <6be494991c924af988b30f464c2ecfd9@verisign.com> Message-ID: Hi , this comment was shared for a while and we need to respond. as I didn't see any objection or comment, I think we can consider as approved. @Farzaneh please resolve the suggestions and lets have the clean version to be submitted. Best, Rafik Le mar. 9 juil. 2019 ? 09:09, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi all, > this is reminder about this response to IRP questionnaire > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EhgKD9GhzheUVBC740WrEszd7dc1JtHwg7Q1wTNYPX8/edit?usp=sharing > > we need to submit asap. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 28 juin 2019 ? 00:13, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> it is reminder to all NCSG PC members to review the draft asap. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mer. 19 juin 2019 ? 05:34, farzaneh badii >> a ?crit : >> >>> Hello Rafik >>> >>> I drafted a brief response to the 4 questions. I didn't know if you had >>> prepared a google doc, sorry if I missed it. But the doc I prepared is >>> here: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EhgKD9GhzheUVBC740WrEszd7dc1JtHwg7Q1wTNYPX8/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:36 PM Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I got this response from Sam in relation to my question about possible >>>> extension: >>>> >>>> "The deadline had previously been moved from the beginning of May to >>>> May 15, but we would be happy to receive any inputs from the NCSG when they >>>> are available. Please submit to the publicly-archived email indicated and >>>> we will include the NCSG?s inputs as we are continuing our analysis >>>> document." >>>> >>>> so we have last change to weigh in the process and submit a comment to >>>> respond to the questions. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le lun. 17 juin 2019 ? 11:26, Rafik Dammak a >>>> ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>> >>>>> that is why I resent the reminder and communication from the council . >>>>> it will be also discussed in Marrakech meeting. >>>>> of course as it is not standard public comment, there is no indication >>>>> of who is the right ICANN staff managing this (I assume it is legal >>>>> counsel). I will reach Sam Eisner to check. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le sam. 15 juin 2019 ? 23:46, Stephanie Perrin < >>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> GOran brought this up in our chat. They want us to respond. Beg for >>>>>> more time if we must.... >>>>>> >>>>>> cheers Steph >>>>>> On 2019-06-12 19:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the response. >>>>>> I think we still have time respond. This is page where the >>>>>> consultation was announced for the first time >>>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-call-to-action >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 00:10 farzaneh badii >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> as far as I remember we had another member there but he was never >>>>>>> active. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which questionnaire do you mean? Do you mean the one I attached >>>>>>> here? Do we still have time for that? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:54 PM Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have 2 action items regarding IRP standing panel , starting with >>>>>>>> adding more volunteers to the implementation oversight team (I think only >>>>>>>> Robin is participating there) . >>>>>>>> We still also have to give our input and respond to the >>>>>>>> questionnaire. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>>> From: Drazek, Keith via council >>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 23:49 >>>>>>>> Subject: [council] IRP IoT and IRP Standing Panel -- Please Review >>>>>>>> To: Donna.Austin at team.neustar >>>>>>>> , gbunton at tucows.com , >>>>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca < >>>>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, claudia.selli at intl.att.com < >>>>>>>> claudia.selli at intl.att.com>, Brian at Winterfeldt.law >>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>> wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de , >>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com , joankerr at fbsc.org < >>>>>>>> joankerr at fbsc.org> >>>>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org , >>>>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Chairs, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I hope this note finds you well as we rapidly approach ICANN 65. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In Marrakech, one of the topics we are likely to discuss and hear >>>>>>>> about from the ICANN Board is the work of the Independent Review Process >>>>>>>> (IRP) Implementation Oversight Team (IoT) and the need for the community to >>>>>>>> focus on the appointment of an IRP Standing Panel. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Two distinct items will require GNSO and SG/C consideration: The >>>>>>>> first is a need to repopulate the current IoT, which began with about 25 >>>>>>>> members several years ago, but has dwindled in active participation. >>>>>>>> Second, the ICANN community will be required to contribute to the >>>>>>>> discussions around the appointment of members to a Standing Panel. This is >>>>>>>> a critical bylaw obligation and must be made a GNSO priority during the >>>>>>>> second half of 2019. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please include this topic in your agenda planning for Marrakech and >>>>>>>> for future SG/C meetings, so the GNSO Council can be well-informed of your >>>>>>>> respective views. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Keith >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> council mailing list >>>>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of >>>>>>>> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>>>>>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >>>>>>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the >>>>>>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, >>>>>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling >>>>>>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Jul 10 23:04:19 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:04:19 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] IRP Standing Panel -- Please Review In-Reply-To: References: <6be494991c924af988b30f464c2ecfd9@verisign.com> Message-ID: Hi Rafik I responded and add additions some days ago so I guess it's ready to go. On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 7:24 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi , > > this comment was shared for a while and we need to respond. as I didn't > see any objection or comment, I think we can consider as approved. > @Farzaneh please resolve the suggestions and lets have the clean version > to be submitted. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mar. 9 juil. 2019 ? 09:09, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> this is reminder about this response to IRP questionnaire >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EhgKD9GhzheUVBC740WrEszd7dc1JtHwg7Q1wTNYPX8/edit?usp=sharing >> >> we need to submit asap. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le ven. 28 juin 2019 ? 00:13, Rafik Dammak a >> ?crit : >> >>> it is reminder to all NCSG PC members to review the draft asap. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le mer. 19 juin 2019 ? 05:34, farzaneh badii >>> a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hello Rafik >>>> >>>> I drafted a brief response to the 4 questions. I didn't know if you had >>>> prepared a google doc, sorry if I missed it. But the doc I prepared is >>>> here: >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EhgKD9GhzheUVBC740WrEszd7dc1JtHwg7Q1wTNYPX8/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:36 PM Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I got this response from Sam in relation to my question about possible >>>>> extension: >>>>> >>>>> "The deadline had previously been moved from the beginning of May to >>>>> May 15, but we would be happy to receive any inputs from the NCSG when they >>>>> are available. Please submit to the publicly-archived email indicated and >>>>> we will include the NCSG?s inputs as we are continuing our analysis >>>>> document." >>>>> >>>>> so we have last change to weigh in the process and submit a comment to >>>>> respond to the questions. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le lun. 17 juin 2019 ? 11:26, Rafik Dammak a >>>>> ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>> >>>>>> that is why I resent the reminder and communication from the council >>>>>> . it will be also discussed in Marrakech meeting. >>>>>> of course as it is not standard public comment, there is no >>>>>> indication of who is the right ICANN staff managing this (I assume it is >>>>>> legal counsel). I will reach Sam Eisner to check. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le sam. 15 juin 2019 ? 23:46, Stephanie Perrin < >>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> GOran brought this up in our chat. They want us to respond. Beg >>>>>>> for more time if we must.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cheers Steph >>>>>>> On 2019-06-12 19:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the response. >>>>>>> I think we still have time respond. This is page where the >>>>>>> consultation was announced for the first time >>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-call-to-action >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 00:10 farzaneh badii >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> as far as I remember we had another member there but he was never >>>>>>>> active. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which questionnaire do you mean? Do you mean the one I attached >>>>>>>> here? Do we still have time for that? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:54 PM Rafik Dammak < >>>>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have 2 action items regarding IRP standing panel , starting >>>>>>>>> with adding more volunteers to the implementation oversight team (I think >>>>>>>>> only Robin is participating there) . >>>>>>>>> We still also have to give our input and respond to the >>>>>>>>> questionnaire. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>>>> From: Drazek, Keith via council >>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 23:49 >>>>>>>>> Subject: [council] IRP IoT and IRP Standing Panel -- Please Review >>>>>>>>> To: Donna.Austin at team.neustar >>>>>>>>> , gbunton at tucows.com < >>>>>>>>> gbunton at tucows.com>, stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca < >>>>>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, claudia.selli at intl.att.com < >>>>>>>>> claudia.selli at intl.att.com>, Brian at Winterfeldt.law >>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>> wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de , >>>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com , joankerr at fbsc.org < >>>>>>>>> joankerr at fbsc.org> >>>>>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org , >>>>>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Chairs, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I hope this note finds you well as we rapidly approach ICANN 65. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In Marrakech, one of the topics we are likely to discuss and hear >>>>>>>>> about from the ICANN Board is the work of the Independent Review Process >>>>>>>>> (IRP) Implementation Oversight Team (IoT) and the need for the community to >>>>>>>>> focus on the appointment of an IRP Standing Panel. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Two distinct items will require GNSO and SG/C consideration: The >>>>>>>>> first is a need to repopulate the current IoT, which began with about 25 >>>>>>>>> members several years ago, but has dwindled in active participation. >>>>>>>>> Second, the ICANN community will be required to contribute to the >>>>>>>>> discussions around the appointment of members to a Standing Panel. This is >>>>>>>>> a critical bylaw obligation and must be made a GNSO priority during the >>>>>>>>> second half of 2019. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please include this topic in your agenda planning for Marrakech >>>>>>>>> and for future SG/C meetings, so the GNSO Council can be well-informed of >>>>>>>>> your respective views. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Keith >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> council mailing list >>>>>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of >>>>>>>>> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>>>>>>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >>>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >>>>>>>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the >>>>>>>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, >>>>>>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling >>>>>>>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Jul 10 23:19:48 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 20:19:48 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Draft Financial Assumptions & Projections and Operating Initiatives for the development of Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Could members of the Policy Committee please review the below comment before 22 July and advise if you have any questions or concerns. The Finance Committee will be considering input on our call of 23 July. We will then get a new version to the membership list and Policy Committee for your potential endorsement. Thanks. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday, 8 July 2019 18:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Dear all, > > ICANN has opened an opportunity for public comment on the Financial Assumptions that are embedded into the Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan. > > The NCSG Finance Committee has drafted a response to this document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15MRe6L9AkkS1e0y5LBzcLRxMfQt5Shi0RH7jIBKq8To/edit > > When you have a moment, please can you review our proposed response and provide feedback either in the Google Doc itself (with your name attached) or on this list by 22 July. > > This will allow the Finance Committee to review your input ahead of our next call on 23 July. > > Further information on the Financial Assumptions can be found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-financial-projections-fy2021-2025-2019-06-14-en > > Kind regards, > > Ayden F?rdeline > on behalf of the NCSG Finance Committee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jul 11 02:29:02 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 08:29:02 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] IRP Standing Panel -- Please Review In-Reply-To: References: <6be494991c924af988b30f464c2ecfd9@verisign.com> Message-ID: thanks Farzaneh, I will submit the comment then. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 11 juil. 2019 ? 05:04, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Hi Rafik > > I responded and add additions some days ago so I guess it's ready to go. > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 7:24 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi , >> >> this comment was shared for a while and we need to respond. as I didn't >> see any objection or comment, I think we can consider as approved. >> @Farzaneh please resolve the suggestions and lets have the clean version >> to be submitted. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le mar. 9 juil. 2019 ? 09:09, Rafik Dammak a >> ?crit : >> >>> Hi all, >>> this is reminder about this response to IRP questionnaire >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EhgKD9GhzheUVBC740WrEszd7dc1JtHwg7Q1wTNYPX8/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> we need to submit asap. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le ven. 28 juin 2019 ? 00:13, Rafik Dammak a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> it is reminder to all NCSG PC members to review the draft asap. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le mer. 19 juin 2019 ? 05:34, farzaneh badii >>>> a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hello Rafik >>>>> >>>>> I drafted a brief response to the 4 questions. I didn't know if you >>>>> had prepared a google doc, sorry if I missed it. But the doc I prepared is >>>>> here: >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EhgKD9GhzheUVBC740WrEszd7dc1JtHwg7Q1wTNYPX8/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:36 PM Rafik Dammak >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I got this response from Sam in relation to my question about >>>>>> possible extension: >>>>>> >>>>>> "The deadline had previously been moved from the beginning of May to >>>>>> May 15, but we would be happy to receive any inputs from the NCSG when they >>>>>> are available. Please submit to the publicly-archived email indicated and >>>>>> we will include the NCSG?s inputs as we are continuing our analysis >>>>>> document." >>>>>> >>>>>> so we have last change to weigh in the process and submit a comment >>>>>> to respond to the questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le lun. 17 juin 2019 ? 11:26, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> that is why I resent the reminder and communication from the council >>>>>>> . it will be also discussed in Marrakech meeting. >>>>>>> of course as it is not standard public comment, there is no >>>>>>> indication of who is the right ICANN staff managing this (I assume it is >>>>>>> legal counsel). I will reach Sam Eisner to check. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le sam. 15 juin 2019 ? 23:46, Stephanie Perrin < >>>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> GOran brought this up in our chat. They want us to respond. Beg >>>>>>>> for more time if we must.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> cheers Steph >>>>>>>> On 2019-06-12 19:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the response. >>>>>>>> I think we still have time respond. This is page where the >>>>>>>> consultation was announced for the first time >>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/independent-review-process-standing-panel-call-to-action >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 00:10 farzaneh badii < >>>>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as far as I remember we had another member there but he was never >>>>>>>>> active. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which questionnaire do you mean? Do you mean the one I attached >>>>>>>>> here? Do we still have time for that? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:54 PM Rafik Dammak < >>>>>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We have 2 action items regarding IRP standing panel , starting >>>>>>>>>> with adding more volunteers to the implementation oversight team (I think >>>>>>>>>> only Robin is participating there) . >>>>>>>>>> We still also have to give our input and respond to the >>>>>>>>>> questionnaire. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>>>>>> From: Drazek, Keith via council >>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 23:49 >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [council] IRP IoT and IRP Standing Panel -- Please Review >>>>>>>>>> To: Donna.Austin at team.neustar >>>>>>>>>> , gbunton at tucows.com < >>>>>>>>>> gbunton at tucows.com>, stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca < >>>>>>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, claudia.selli at intl.att.com < >>>>>>>>>> claudia.selli at intl.att.com>, Brian at Winterfeldt.law >>>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>> wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de , >>>>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com , joankerr at fbsc.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org , >>>>>>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Chairs, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I hope this note finds you well as we rapidly approach ICANN 65. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In Marrakech, one of the topics we are likely to discuss and hear >>>>>>>>>> about from the ICANN Board is the work of the Independent Review Process >>>>>>>>>> (IRP) Implementation Oversight Team (IoT) and the need for the community to >>>>>>>>>> focus on the appointment of an IRP Standing Panel. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Two distinct items will require GNSO and SG/C consideration: The >>>>>>>>>> first is a need to repopulate the current IoT, which began with about 25 >>>>>>>>>> members several years ago, but has dwindled in active participation. >>>>>>>>>> Second, the ICANN community will be required to contribute to the >>>>>>>>>> discussions around the appointment of members to a Standing Panel. This is >>>>>>>>>> a critical bylaw obligation and must be made a GNSO priority during the >>>>>>>>>> second half of 2019. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please include this topic in your agenda planning for Marrakech >>>>>>>>>> and for future SG/C meetings, so the GNSO Council can be well-informed of >>>>>>>>>> your respective views. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Keith >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> council mailing list >>>>>>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing >>>>>>>>>> of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>>>>>>>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >>>>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >>>>>>>>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the >>>>>>>>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, >>>>>>>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling >>>>>>>>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- > Farzaneh > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jul 11 11:20:45 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:20:45 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on Streamlining ICANN Reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi all, we have this comment for review. it still needs works and to be refined. so help is welcome here because the subject . Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- De : Thato Mfikwe Date: jeu. 11 juil. 2019 ? 16:59 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on Streamlining ICANN Reviews To: Hi members, Please kindly find, review and comment on the NCSG Process Proposal for Streamlining Organisational Reviews , Google doc link: NCSG draft comment, this comment was prepared by volunteers for your review, consideration and comment. Please note that the closing date for submission is 15 July, in 4 days, so your input will be highly appreciated before then and please highlight any proposed additions to this comment, thanks. Thato Mfikwe. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 11 17:05:59 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 14:05:59 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: NCSG Draft Comment on Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I support the submission of this comment. I also appreciate that it has been prepared with a full month for us to review its content. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Thursday, 11 July 2019 10:36, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > Bonjour ? tous, > > Here below is a Google doc link to the draft comment (mostly Milton's thoughts with a few tweaks) on Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rss-governance-2019-05-23-en) for your review and comment. > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azvCLRCk62OQDfujF9qqz4_alDN5DhTrFDeI465yhRg/edit > > On Rafik's recommendation, we'll like to solicit your views, input and any proposed additions early before finalizing the draft. Any contribution will be appreciated. > > Very best regards, > Tomslin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 11 17:14:26 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 14:14:26 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on Streamlining ICANN Reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Unfortunately, I think this comment is not yet ready for submission. I say this because the structure of this comment does not closely follow the process that ICANN org has proposed and the comments/recommendations proposed are not consistent with our previous NCSG positions on ICANN Reviews (i.e. around timing). Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Thursday, 11 July 2019 09:20, Rafik Dammak wrote: > hi all, > > we have this comment for review. it still needs works and to be refined. so help is welcome here because the subject . > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > De : Thato Mfikwe > Date: jeu. 11 juil. 2019 ? 16:59 > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on Streamlining ICANN Reviews > To: > > Hi members, > > Please kindly find, review and comment on the NCSG [Process Proposal for Streamlining Organisational Reviews](https://www.icann.org/public-comments/streamlining-org-reviews-proposal-2019-04-30-en), Google doc link: [NCSG draft](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit)comment, this comment was prepared by volunteers for your review, consideration and comment. > > Please note that the closing date for submission is 15 July, in 4 days, so your input will be highly appreciated before then and please highlight any proposed additions to this comment, thanks. > > Thato Mfikwe. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Thu Jul 11 17:49:59 2019 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 11:49:59 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: NCSG Draft Comment on Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <189B286F-CDC5-42F5-8307-98A8EF2ABD39@gmail.com> I endorse the submission of this document, Thanks to the drafters! Best, Martin Silva Valent mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Partner | Silva.legal martin at silva.legal Director | Dat.as martin.silva at dat.as Skype ID: mpsilvavalent Tel: +5491164993943 Libertador 5990, Off. 406 Buenos Aires, Argentina. Este email, incluyendo adjuntos, podr?a contener informaci?n confidencial protegida por ley y es para uso exclusivo de su destinatario. Si Ud. no es el destinatario, se le advierte que cualquier uso, difusi?n, copia o retenci?n de este email o su contenido est? estrictamente prohibido. Si Ud. recibi? este email por error, por favor avise inmediatamente al remitente por tel?fono o email y borre el mismo de su computadora. / This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain information that is protected by law as privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying or retention of this e-mail or the information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or reply e-mail, and permanently delete this e-mail from your computer system. > On 11 Jul 2019, at 11:05, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I support the submission of this comment. > > I also appreciate that it has been prepared with a full month for us to review its content. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Thursday, 11 July 2019 10:36, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > >> Bonjour ? tous, >> >> Here below is a Google doc link to the draft comment (mostly Milton's thoughts with a few tweaks) on Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rss-governance-2019-05-23-en ) for your review and comment. >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azvCLRCk62OQDfujF9qqz4_alDN5DhTrFDeI465yhRg/edit >> >> On Rafik's recommendation, we'll like to solicit your views, input and any proposed additions early before finalizing the draft. Any contribution will be appreciated. >> >> Very best regards, >> Tomslin >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing 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 Jul 11 18:00:45 2019 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:00:45 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: NCSG Draft Comment on Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System In-Reply-To: <189B286F-CDC5-42F5-8307-98A8EF2ABD39@gmail.com> References: <189B286F-CDC5-42F5-8307-98A8EF2ABD39@gmail.com> Message-ID: Same: my support and big thanks. Cheers, Tanya On Thu 11. Jul 2019 at 16:50, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > I endorse the submission of this document, Thanks to the drafters! > > Best, > > Martin Silva Valent > > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com > > > *Partner | Silva.legal*martin at silva.legal > > *Director | Dat.as* > martin.silva at dat.as > > Skype ID: mpsilvavalent > Tel: +5491164993943 > Libertador 5990 > , > Off. 406 > Buenos Aires, Argentina. > > Este email, incluyendo adjuntos, podr?a contener informaci?n confidencial > protegida por ley y es para uso exclusivo de su destinatario. Si Ud. no es > el destinatario, se le advierte que cualquier uso, difusi?n, copia o > retenci?n de este email o su contenido est? estrictamente prohibido. > Si Ud. recibi? este email por error, por favor avise inmediatamente al > remitente por tel?fono o email y borre el mismo de su computadora. / > This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain information that is > protected by law as privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for > the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying or > retention of this e-mail or the information contained herein is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately > notify the sender by telephone or reply e-mail, and permanently delete > this e-mail from your computer system. > > On 11 Jul 2019, at 11:05, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I support the submission of this comment. > > I also appreciate that it has been prepared with a full month for us to > review its content. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Thursday, 11 July 2019 10:36, Tomslin Samme-Nlar > wrote: > > Bonjour ? tous, > > Here below is a Google doc link to the draft comment (mostly Milton's > thoughts with a few tweaks) on Evolving the Governance of the Root Server > System (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rss-governance-2019-05-23-en) > for your review and comment. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azvCLRCk62OQDfujF9qqz4_alDN5DhTrFDeI465yhRg/edit > > On Rafik's recommendation, we'll like to solicit your views, input and any > proposed additions early before finalizing the draft. Any contribution will > be appreciated. > > Very best regards, > Tomslin > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Thu Jul 11 20:38:53 2019 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 13:38:53 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: NCSG Draft Comment on Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System In-Reply-To: References: <189B286F-CDC5-42F5-8307-98A8EF2ABD39@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 Kathy (observer) On 7/11/2019 11:00 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > Same: my support and big thanks. > Cheers, > Tanya > > On Thu 11. Jul 2019 at 16:50, Martin Pablo Silva Valent > > wrote: > > I endorse the submission of this document, Thanks to the drafters! > > Best, > > Martin Silva Valent > > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com > > *Partner | Silva.legal > *martin at silva.legal > > *Director | Dat.as* > martin.silva at dat.as > > Skype ID: mpsilvavalent > Tel: +5491164993943 > Libertador 5990 > , > Off. 406 > Buenos Aires, Argentina. > > Este email, incluyendo adjuntos, podr?a contener?informaci?n > ?confidencial protegida por ley y es?para uso exclusivo de su > destinatario. Si ?Ud. no?es el destinatario, se le advierte que > cualquier?uso, difusi?n, copia o ?retenci?n de este email o?su > contenido est? estrictamente prohibido.? Si?Ud. ?recibi? este > email por error, por favor avise?inmediatamente al remitente por > ?tel?fono o?email y borre el mismo de su computadora. / > This??e-mail, including any attachments, may contain?information > that is protected by ?law as privileged?and confidential, and is > transmitted for the sole?use of the ?intended recipient. If you > are not the?intended recipient, you are hereby ?notified that?any > use, dissemination, copying or retention of?this e-mail or the > ?information contained herein is?strictly prohibited. If you have > received this ?e-mail in error, please immediately notify > the?sender by telephone or reply ?e-mail, and?permanently delete > this e-mail from your?computer system. > >> On 11 Jul 2019, at 11:05, Ayden F?rdeline > > wrote: >> >> I support the submission of this comment. >> >> I also appreciate that it has been prepared with a full month for >> us to review its content. >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Thursday, 11 July 2019 10:36, Tomslin Samme-Nlar >> > wrote: >> >>> Bonjour ? tous, >>> >>> Here below is a Google doc link to the draft comment (mostly >>> Milton's thoughts with a few tweaks) on Evolving the Governance >>> of the Root Server System >>> (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rss-governance-2019-05-23-en) >>> for your review and comment. >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azvCLRCk62OQDfujF9qqz4_alDN5DhTrFDeI465yhRg/edit >>> >>> On Rafik's recommendation, we'll like to solicit your views, >>> input and any proposed additions early before finalizing the >>> draft. Any contribution will be appreciated. >>> >>> Very best regards, >>> Tomslin >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.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 carlosraul at gutierrez.se Fri Jul 12 00:42:53 2019 From: carlosraul at gutierrez.se (Carlos Raul Gutierrez) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 22:42:53 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on Streamlining ICANN Reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <95f22a07fe6511d9aa8deda7d45dad45@gutierrez.se> Hello Rafik! I have a very sanguine view on the future of organizational reviews now that ICANN is 21 years old: each organization (member of the empowered community) should do its own strategic and performance analysis on a yearly basis and publish it in a format that is comparable between groups. Example: PDP *.0 If they don't, no budget increases...... Cheers --- Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez carlosraul at gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2019-07-11 09:20, Rafik Dammak escribi?: > hi all, > > we have this comment for review. it still needs works and to be refined. so help is welcome here because the subject . > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > De : THATO MFIKWE > Date: jeu. 11 juil. 2019 ? 16:59 > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on Streamlining ICANN Reviews > To: > > Hi members, > > Please kindly find, review and comment on the NCSG Process Proposal for Streamlining Organisational Reviews [1], Google doc link: NCSG draft [2]comment, this comment was prepared by volunteers for your review, consideration and comment. > > Please note that the closing date for submission is 15 July, in 4 days, so your input will be highly appreciated before then and please highlight any proposed additions to this comment, thanks. > > Thato Mfikwe. > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc Links: ------ [1] https://www.icann.org/public-comments/streamlining-org-reviews-proposal-2019-04-30-en [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 12 08:46:17 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 14:46:17 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on Streamlining ICANN Reviews In-Reply-To: <95f22a07fe6511d9aa8deda7d45dad45@gutierrez.se> References: <95f22a07fe6511d9aa8deda7d45dad45@gutierrez.se> Message-ID: Hi, the draft needs more work and refining. I am keen to ask for extension (and likely to get it) in order for us to have a substantial and substantive input in this process. Best, Rafik Le ven. 12 juil. 2019 ? 06:42, Carlos Raul Gutierrez < carlosraul at gutierrez.se> a ?crit : > Hello Rafik! > > I have a very sanguine view on the future of organizational reviews now > that ICANN is 21 years old: each organization (member of the empowered > community) should do its own strategic and performance analysis on a yearly > basis and publish it in a format that is comparable between groups. > Example: PDP *.0 > > If they don't, no budget increases...... > > > Cheers > --- > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > carlosraul at gutierrez.se > +506 8837 7176 > Aparatado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > > > El 2019-07-11 09:20, Rafik Dammak escribi?: > > hi all, > > we have this comment for review. it still needs works and to be refined. > so help is welcome here because the subject . > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > De : Thato Mfikwe > Date: jeu. 11 juil. 2019 ? 16:59 > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on Streamlining ICANN Reviews > To: > > > Hi members, > > Please kindly find, review and comment on the NCSG Process Proposal for > Streamlining Organisational Reviews > , > Google doc link: NCSG draft > comment, > this comment was prepared by volunteers for your review, consideration and > comment. > > Please note that the closing date for submission is 15 July, in 4 days, so > your input will be highly appreciated before then and please highlight any > proposed additions to this comment, thanks. > > Thato Mfikwe. > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing 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 Jul 12 09:46:05 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:46:05 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Policy Development Process on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration Message-ID: Hi all, The board just initiated the public comment/consultation on " IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Recommendations" , https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-recommendations-2019-07-11-en. I believe since this was discussed for long time at council level, the PC should take the lead on drafting the comment on this one and response is quite straight forward since it is more about process than substance. anyone wants to volunteer to be pendholder? Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Jul 13 00:10:59 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 06:10:59 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on Streamlining ICANN Reviews In-Reply-To: References: <95f22a07fe6511d9aa8deda7d45dad45@gutierrez.se> Message-ID: Hi, We can submit by 26th July so we need to use that time to rework the draft. Best, Rafik On Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 14:46 Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > the draft needs more work and refining. I am keen to ask for extension > (and likely to get it) in order for us to have a substantial and > substantive input in this process. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le ven. 12 juil. 2019 ? 06:42, Carlos Raul Gutierrez < > carlosraul at gutierrez.se> a ?crit : > >> Hello Rafik! >> >> I have a very sanguine view on the future of organizational reviews now >> that ICANN is 21 years old: each organization (member of the empowered >> community) should do its own strategic and performance analysis on a yearly >> basis and publish it in a format that is comparable between groups. >> Example: PDP *.0 >> >> If they don't, no budget increases...... >> >> >> Cheers >> --- >> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >> +506 8837 7176 >> Aparatado 1571-1000 >> COSTA RICA >> >> >> >> El 2019-07-11 09:20, Rafik Dammak escribi?: >> >> hi all, >> >> we have this comment for review. it still needs works and to be refined. >> so help is welcome here because the subject . >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> De : Thato Mfikwe >> Date: jeu. 11 juil. 2019 ? 16:59 >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on Streamlining ICANN Reviews >> To: >> >> >> Hi members, >> >> Please kindly find, review and comment on the NCSG Process Proposal for >> Streamlining Organisational Reviews >> , >> Google doc link: NCSG draft >> comment, >> this comment was prepared by volunteers for your review, consideration and >> comment. >> >> Please note that the closing date for submission is 15 July, in 4 days, >> so your input will be highly appreciated before then and please highlight >> any proposed additions to this comment, thanks. >> >> Thato Mfikwe. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing 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 Jul 15 16:37:27 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:37:27 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] FOR FINAL REVIEW: Revised Guidelines & Motion Template - Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum (11 July 2019) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I must confess that I have missed the last couple of meetings on this issue. As you can see, the final draft is nearly ready, we need to comment asap. Please, folks who participated more closely in the IANA review, take a look. Or tell me who I should forward this to to take a look. cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] FOR FINAL REVIEW: Revised Guidelines & Motion Template - Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum (11 July 2019) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 21:04:56 +0000 From: Julie Hedlund To: gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org Dear DT members, Per action item 2 below from the meeting on 10 July, please review the revised version of the GUIDELINES & MOTION TEMPLATE: SECTION 1.3 APPROVAL ACTION COMMUNITY FORUM DRAFT (11 July 2019) at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v5qtCO0Ocrbkk6o2YVrsuIWwjTQsprdEmWBYD35OH6o/edit?usp=sharing. The document also is attached in Word with redlines. The document will be on the agenda for finalization/approval at the next meeting on Wednesday, 24 July at 21:00 UTC. In the meantime, DT members are encouraged to make suggested edits and comments in the Google document or in the Word document. Thank you very much for your consideration. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Gnso-bylaws-dt on behalf of Julie Hedlund Date: Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 4:59 PM To: "gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting 10 July 21:00 UTC Dear all, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO Drafting Team meeting held on 10 July 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have posted these to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=111387729. Please note that all versions of the guidelines may be found on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines+Depository. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions Items: 1. Joint ccNSO/GNSO Initiation of a Special IFR: Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN Legal, specifically on whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointed initiate a Special IFR. (DONE ? see response in separate message.) 2. Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT consideration (see below), including a timeline for the GNSO Council actions. (DONE ? see documents for review in separate message.) 3. Preparation for 24 July Meeting: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. (DONE ? see documents for review in separate message.) Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided. 2. Section 18.12 Special IFRs -- Brief Update re: 15 July joint GRC/DT meeting on Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Consultation on Initiating a Special IFR:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ol8461abkOqzXSahZKkuLL-7GxDWklmA0wnK1CKwfgY/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] -- What do we expect from the meeting on 15 July and how do we move forward? Could the GRC be satisfied from the call on Monday, or would there be additional deliberations? -- Expectation that it is a matter of clarification and coming to a common understanding of the questions. The GRC and DT can finish their documents and they would have two common approaches. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN Legal, particularly as to whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointly initiate a Special IFR. 3. Discussion/Edits re: Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tR6YeATOl-_6ig7XKKluR3jwY8cLPYKoLCB-t6GhVNc/edit?usp=sharing -- Staff and David McCauley noted that there is a real-time example of the anticipated use of the Approval Action Community Forum to consider the ccNSO?s request for a Fundamental Bylaws Amendment regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Team's Composition. See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-iana-naming-function-2019-06-10-en [icann.org]. -- Staff also noted that the EC Administration has accordingly requested, per the Bylaws, that an Approval Action Community Forum should be scheduled to take place during ICANN66 in Montreal. Edits/Comments for DT Consideration in the Google Doc (as called out in the revised version dated 11 July): 1. Noting that although the current representative to the EC Administration is the GNSO Council Chair, there is nothing to prevent the GNSO Council from choosing a different person as its representative. Thus, it is suggested that references to the GNSO Council Chair in the document should be changed to GNSO Representative to the EC Administration (see page 4 and onward). Maxim Alzoba also inserted a comment relating to this issue, so we request that he should review this suggested edit. 2. 4.3.1 Consultation Mechanism: a. Change ?If such a consultation is scheduled? to ?If such a consultation occurs?. b. In response to a point made by David McCauley about ensuring that the GNSO Council can meet the decision deadline of 21 days as specified in the Bylaws, add to the last sentence, ?and in no event later than the 21-day Approval Action Decision Period per Section 1.4 Annex D of the Bylaws.? 1. 4.3.2 GNSO Council Decision and Informing the EC Administration: a. The DT discussed how to ensure that the GNSO Council?s actions to decide on whether to support, object to, or abstain from the Approval Action are completed within the above-mentioned 21-day period. Staff suggested adding a timeline showing the timing of the activities. In addition, staff has added the excerpt from the Bylaws with the relevant details. b. On 11 July Wolf-Ulrich Knoben suggested edits to combine sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 into one section. Staff has included those edits in the version dated 11 July. 1. Staff also accepted all of the grammatical changes provided by Heather Forrest. ACTION ITEM: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT consideration, including a timeline for the GNSO Council actions. 4. Next Meeting: 24 July: The DT will finalize its review of Section 1.3, and begin review of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. ACTION ITEM: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GUIDELINES & MOTION TEMPLATE_ SECTION 1.3 APPROVAL ACTION COMMUNITY FORUM DRAFT 11 July 2019.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 28414 bytes Desc: GUIDELINES & MOTION TEMPLATE_ SECTION 1.3 APPROVAL ACTION COMMUNITY FORUM DRAFT 11 July 2019.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Jul 15 17:17:40 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 14:17:40 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FYI: 15 July Update In-Reply-To: <26890DA8-213C-4307-98A2-4FDB34274E6D@icann.org> References: <26890DA8-213C-4307-98A2-4FDB34274E6D@icann.org> Message-ID: I thought we got an extension on the review teams review? lots of work as yet undone here... cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] FYI: 15 July Update Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 14:02:09 +0000 From: Terri Agnew To: GNSO Council List CC: gnso-secs at icann.org FYI: [Image removed by sender.] Monday, 15 July 2019 ICANN Community Leadership Digest [Image removed by sender.] This twice-weekly digest helps ICANN community leaders track requests and provides updates from ICANN org. TABLE OF CONTENTS Information Sharing ? NEW: Post-ICANN65 Policy Report Now Available ? REMINDER: NextGen at ICANN Survey ? REMINDER: Update and Information on IRP IOT Re-Composition ? REMINDER: Planning Assumptions for Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs Public Comment ? CLOSING TODAY: Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews ? CLOSING THIS WEEK: Study on Technical Use of Root Zone Label Generation Rules ? CLOSING NEXT WEEK: Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Proposal -- IANA Naming Function Review ? CLOSING NEXT WEEK: Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws re SSAC and RSSAC Leadership ? CLOSING NEXT WEEK: Proposed IANA SLAs for Publishing LGRs/IDN Tables ? Draft Final Report of the Second Country Code Names Supporting Organization Review ? Draft Financial Assumptions & Projections and Operating Initiatives for the Development of the Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan ? Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System ? Proposed Definition of Name Collisions and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collisions Analysis Project Information Sharing NEW: Post-ICANN65 Policy Report Now Available Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING The Post-ICANN65 Policy Report [r20.rs6.net] written by the ICANN Policy Development Support team captures decisions and outcomes from the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. While the report provides an overview of activities held during the Policy Forum, it also looks ahead at the work to come in the upcoming months. Included in the report are various resources to support the ongoing, sustained engagement of the community on several important issues. REMINDER: NextGen at ICANN Survey Executive: Sally Costerton, Senior Adviser to President and Senior Vice President, Global Stakeholder Engagement FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING The ICANN organization is initiating a community consultation [r20.rs6.net] to identify improvement opportunities for the NextGen at ICANN Program [r20.rs6.net]. The review will start with gathering community input via a survey about several aspects of the NextGen at ICANN Program, including its purpose, goals, processes, and synergies with the ICANN academic community. The survey [r20.rs6.net] (PDF with background at the beginning and questionnaire questions at the end) is intended for all ICANN community groups; individuals are encouraged to work with their relevant Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, stakeholder groups, and constituencies. Responses are due Monday, 9 September. Based on the input received from the survey, ICANN org will draft a proposal for program improvements that will be published for Public Comment. Once all feedback is received, ICANN org will prepare the final proposal for program improvements. Sally Costerton's blog about the NextGen at ICANN Community Consultation [r20.rs6.net] REMINDER: Update and Information on IRP IOT Re-Composition Executive: John Jeffrey, General Counsel FOR: All SO/AC Chairs INFORMATION SHARING As the ICANN Board committee with oversight responsibility of ICANN's accountability mechanisms, the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) considers the work of the [Independent Review Process (IRP)] Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) to be paramount to ICANN's accountability...we seek your help in finding additional volunteers within the community that meet the qualifications identified in the attached letter, outlining skills and experience requirements, to join the IOT and help to conclude its work in a timely fashion. Read more [r20.rs6.net]. REMINDER: Planning Assumptions for Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs Executive: Cyrus Namazi, Senior Vice President, Global Domains Division FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING In December 2015, the GNSO initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) to determine if changes to existing policy recommendations are needed before the next round of gTLDs. The PDP Working Group expects to publish its final report with its recommendations by December 2019. These recommendations may lead to procedural changes for subsequent rounds of gTLD applications, which ICANN org must implement and manage. In the course of our preparatory work toward the planning and implementation of the new policy, ICANN org has compiled a number of fundamental operationally focused assumptions to help with the preliminary planning and operational readiness of the organization. These assumptions have been shared with the ICANN Board, and now ICANN org would like to share them with relevant parts of the community. Public Comment Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews [r20.rs6.net] CLOSING TODAY: Monday, 15 July 2019 Study on Technical Use of Root Zone Label Generation Rules [r20.rs6.net] CLOSING THIS WEEK: Friday, 19 July Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Proposal -- IANA Naming Function Review [r20.rs6.net] CLOSING NEXT WEEK: Friday, 26 July 2019 Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws re SSAC and RSSAC Leadership [r20.rs6.net] CLOSING NEXT WEEK: Friday, 26 July 2019 Proposed IANA SLAs for Publishing LGRs/IDN Tables [r20.rs6.net] CLOSING NEXT WEEK: Friday, 26 July 2019 Draft Final Report of the Second Country Code Names Supporting Organization Review [r20.rs6.net] Close Date: 4 August 2019 Draft Financial Assumptions & Projections and Operating Initiatives for the Development of the Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan [r20.rs6.net] Close Date: Monday, 5 August 2019 Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System [r20.rs6.net] Close Date: Friday, 9 August 2019 Proposed Definition of Name Collisions and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collisions Analysis Project [r20.rs6.net] Close Date: Monday, 12 August 2019 Volume 1, Issue 32 | Archive [r20.rs6.net] | Next Issue: Thursday, 18 July 2019 ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Unsubscribe so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org [visitor.constantcontact.com] Update Profile [visitor.constantcontact.com] | About Constant Contact [constantcontact.com] Sent by david.olive at icann.org in collaboration with [Image removed by sender. Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today.][constantcontact.com] Try email marketing for free today! [constantcontact.com] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 15 17:21:52 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 23:21:52 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FYI: 15 July Update In-Reply-To: References: <26890DA8-213C-4307-98A2-4FDB34274E6D@icann.org> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, we got to be able to do a a late submission by 26th July and insurance that will be added to the public comment list and included in staff summary report. but there is no formal extension of the public comment itself. Best, Rafik Le lun. 15 juil. 2019 ? 23:17, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > I thought we got an extension on the review teams review? lots of work as > yet undone here... > > cheers Steph > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [council] FYI: 15 July Update > Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 14:02:09 +0000 > From: Terri Agnew > To: GNSO Council List > CC: gnso-secs at icann.org > > *FYI:* > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > *Monday, 15 July 2019* > > > > *ICANN Community Leadership Digest* > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > > > This twice-weekly digest helps ICANN community leaders track requests and > provides updates from ICANN org. > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > > > *TABLE OF CONTENTS* > > > > *Information Sharing* > > ? NEW: Post-ICANN65 Policy Report Now Available > > ? REMINDER: NextGen at ICANN Survey > > ? REMINDER: Update and Information on IRP IOT Re-Composition > > ? REMINDER: Planning Assumptions for Subsequent Procedures for New > gTLDs > > *Public Comment* > > ? CLOSING TODAY: Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational > Reviews > > ? CLOSING THIS WEEK: Study on Technical Use of Root Zone Label > Generation Rules > > ? CLOSING NEXT WEEK: Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Proposal -- IANA > Naming Function Review > > ? CLOSING NEXT WEEK: Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws re SSAC and RSSAC > Leadership > > ? CLOSING NEXT WEEK: Proposed IANA SLAs for Publishing LGRs/IDN > Tables > > ? Draft Final Report of the Second Country Code Names Supporting > Organization Review > > ? Draft Financial Assumptions & Projections and Operating Initiatives > for the Development of the Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial > Plan > > ? Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System > > ? Proposed Definition of Name Collisions and Scope of Inquiry for the > Name Collisions Analysis Project > > > > > > *Information Sharing* > > > > *NEW: **Post-ICANN65 Policy Report Now Available* > > *Executive: *David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development > Support > > > > *FOR: *All Community Leaders > > > > *INFORMATION SHARING* > > The Post-ICANN65 Policy Report [r20.rs6.net] > > written by the ICANN Policy Development Support team captures decisions and > outcomes from the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. While > the report provides an overview of activities held during the Policy Forum, > it also looks ahead at the work to come in the upcoming months. Included in > the report are various resources to support the ongoing, sustained > engagement of the community on several important issues. > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > > > *REMINDER: **NextGen at ICANN Survey* > > *Executive: *Sally Costerton, Senior Adviser to President and Senior Vice > President, Global Stakeholder Engagement > > > > *FOR: *All Community Leaders > > > > *INFORMATION SHARING* > > The ICANN organization is initiating a community consultation > [r20.rs6.net] > to > identify improvement opportunities for the NextGen at ICANN Program > [r20.rs6.net] > . > The review will start with gathering community input via a survey about > several aspects of the NextGen at ICANN Program, including its purpose, > goals, processes, and synergies with the ICANN academic community. The *survey > [r20.rs6.net]* > (PDF > with background at the beginning and questionnaire questions at the end) is > intended for all ICANN community groups; individuals are encouraged to work > with their relevant Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, > stakeholder groups, and constituencies. Responses are due Monday, 9 > September. > > > > Based on the input received from the survey, ICANN org will draft a > proposal for program improvements that will be published for Public > Comment. Once all feedback is received, ICANN org will prepare the final > proposal for program improvements. > > > > Sally Costerton's blog about the NextGen at ICANN Community Consultation > [r20.rs6.net] > > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > > > *REMINDER: **Update and Information on IRP IOT Re-Composition* > > *Executive: *John Jeffrey, General Counsel > > > > *FOR: *All SO/AC Chairs > > > > *INFORMATION SHARING* > > As the ICANN Board committee with oversight responsibility of ICANN's > accountability mechanisms, the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee > (BAMC) considers the work of the [Independent Review Process (IRP)] > Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) to be paramount to ICANN's > accountability...we seek your help in finding additional volunteers within > the community that meet the qualifications identified in the attached > letter, outlining skills and experience requirements, to join the IOT and > help to conclude its work in a timely fashion. Read more [r20.rs6.net] > . > > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > > > *REMINDER:* *Planning Assumptions for Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs* > > *Executive: *Cyrus Namazi, Senior Vice President, Global Domains Division > > > > *FOR: *All Community Leaders > > > > *INFORMATION SHARING* > > In December 2015, the GNSO initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) to > determine if changes to existing policy recommendations are needed before > the next round of gTLDs. The PDP Working Group expects to publish its final > report with its recommendations by December 2019. These recommendations may > lead to procedural changes for subsequent rounds of gTLD applications, > which ICANN org must implement and manage. In the course of our preparatory > work toward the planning and implementation of the new policy, ICANN org > has compiled a number of fundamental operationally focused assumptions to > help with the preliminary planning and operational readiness of the > organization. These assumptions have been shared with the ICANN Board, and > now ICANN org would like to share them with relevant parts of the community. > > > > *Public Comment* > > > > *Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews [r20.rs6.net]* > > > *CLOSING TODAY:* Monday, 15 July 2019 > > > > *Study on Technical Use of Root Zone Label Generation Rules [r20.rs6.net]* > > > *CLOSING THIS WEEK: *Friday, 19 July > > > > *Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Proposal -- IANA Naming Function Review > [r20.rs6.net]* > > > *CLOSING NEXT WEEK:* Friday, 26 July 2019 > > > > *Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws re SSAC and RSSAC Leadership [r20.rs6.net]* > > > *CLOSING NEXT WEEK:* Friday, 26 July 2019 > > > > *Proposed IANA SLAs for Publishing LGRs/IDN Tables [r20.rs6.net]* > > > *CLOSING NEXT WEEK:* Friday, 26 July 2019 > > > > *Draft Final Report of the Second Country Code Names Supporting > Organization Review [r20.rs6.net]* > > > *Close Date:* 4 August 2019 > > > > *Draft Financial Assumptions & Projections and Operating Initiatives for > the Development of the Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan > [r20.rs6.net]* > > > *Close Date: *Monday, 5 August 2019 > > > > *Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System [r20.rs6.net]* > > > *Close Date: *Friday, 9 August 2019 > > > > *Proposed Definition of Name Collisions and Scope of Inquiry for the Name > Collisions Analysis Project [r20.rs6.net]* > > > *Close Date: *Monday, 12 August 2019 > > > > *Volume 1, Issue 32 | **Archive [r20.rs6.net] > ** > | Next Issue: Thursday, 18 July 2019* > > > > ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > > Unsubscribe so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org [visitor.constantcontact.com] > > > Update Profile [visitor.constantcontact.com] > > | About Constant Contact [constantcontact.com] > > > Sent by david.olive at icann.org in collaboration with > > [image: Image removed by sender. Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try > it FREE today.][constantcontact.com] > > > Try email marketing for free today! [constantcontact.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: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Jul 15 17:39:16 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 14:39:16 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FYI: 15 July Update In-Reply-To: References: <26890DA8-213C-4307-98A2-4FDB34274E6D@icann.org> Message-ID: <5609ca17-6d6a-c8c9-c2aa-012458a363e4@mail.utoronto.ca> Great thanks! I will have a go at it today. Have a ton of other work to catch up on so it will be late or tomorrow.. cheers Steph On 2019-07-15 10:21, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Stephanie, we got to be able to do a a late submission by 26th July and insurance that will be added to the public comment list and included in staff summary report. but there is no formal extension of the public comment itself. Best, Rafik Le lun. 15 juil. 2019 ? 23:17, Stephanie Perrin > a ?crit : I thought we got an extension on the review teams review? lots of work as yet undone here... cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] FYI: 15 July Update Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 14:02:09 +0000 From: Terri Agnew To: GNSO Council List CC: gnso-secs at icann.org FYI: [Image removed by sender.] Monday, 15 July 2019 ICANN Community Leadership Digest [Image removed by sender.] This twice-weekly digest helps ICANN community leaders track requests and provides updates from ICANN org. TABLE OF CONTENTS Information Sharing ? NEW: Post-ICANN65 Policy Report Now Available ? REMINDER: NextGen at ICANN Survey ? REMINDER: Update and Information on IRP IOT Re-Composition ? REMINDER: Planning Assumptions for Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs Public Comment ? CLOSING TODAY: Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews ? CLOSING THIS WEEK: Study on Technical Use of Root Zone Label Generation Rules ? CLOSING NEXT WEEK: Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Proposal -- IANA Naming Function Review ? CLOSING NEXT WEEK: Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws re SSAC and RSSAC Leadership ? CLOSING NEXT WEEK: Proposed IANA SLAs for Publishing LGRs/IDN Tables ? Draft Final Report of the Second Country Code Names Supporting Organization Review ? Draft Financial Assumptions & Projections and Operating Initiatives for the Development of the Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan ? Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System ? Proposed Definition of Name Collisions and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collisions Analysis Project Information Sharing NEW: Post-ICANN65 Policy Report Now Available Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING The Post-ICANN65 Policy Report [r20.rs6.net] written by the ICANN Policy Development Support team captures decisions and outcomes from the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. While the report provides an overview of activities held during the Policy Forum, it also looks ahead at the work to come in the upcoming months. Included in the report are various resources to support the ongoing, sustained engagement of the community on several important issues. REMINDER: NextGen at ICANN Survey Executive: Sally Costerton, Senior Adviser to President and Senior Vice President, Global Stakeholder Engagement FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING The ICANN organization is initiating a community consultation [r20.rs6.net] to identify improvement opportunities for the NextGen at ICANN Program [r20.rs6.net]. The review will start with gathering community input via a survey about several aspects of the NextGen at ICANN Program, including its purpose, goals, processes, and synergies with the ICANN academic community. The survey [r20.rs6.net] (PDF with background at the beginning and questionnaire questions at the end) is intended for all ICANN community groups; individuals are encouraged to work with their relevant Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, stakeholder groups, and constituencies. Responses are due Monday, 9 September. Based on the input received from the survey, ICANN org will draft a proposal for program improvements that will be published for Public Comment. Once all feedback is received, ICANN org will prepare the final proposal for program improvements. Sally Costerton's blog about the NextGen at ICANN Community Consultation [r20.rs6.net] REMINDER: Update and Information on IRP IOT Re-Composition Executive: John Jeffrey, General Counsel FOR: All SO/AC Chairs INFORMATION SHARING As the ICANN Board committee with oversight responsibility of ICANN's accountability mechanisms, the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) considers the work of the [Independent Review Process (IRP)] Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) to be paramount to ICANN's accountability...we seek your help in finding additional volunteers within the community that meet the qualifications identified in the attached letter, outlining skills and experience requirements, to join the IOT and help to conclude its work in a timely fashion. Read more [r20.rs6.net]. REMINDER: Planning Assumptions for Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs Executive: Cyrus Namazi, Senior Vice President, Global Domains Division FOR: All Community Leaders INFORMATION SHARING In December 2015, the GNSO initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) to determine if changes to existing policy recommendations are needed before the next round of gTLDs. The PDP Working Group expects to publish its final report with its recommendations by December 2019. These recommendations may lead to procedural changes for subsequent rounds of gTLD applications, which ICANN org must implement and manage. In the course of our preparatory work toward the planning and implementation of the new policy, ICANN org has compiled a number of fundamental operationally focused assumptions to help with the preliminary planning and operational readiness of the organization. These assumptions have been shared with the ICANN Board, and now ICANN org would like to share them with relevant parts of the community. Public Comment Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews [r20.rs6.net] CLOSING TODAY: Monday, 15 July 2019 Study on Technical Use of Root Zone Label Generation Rules [r20.rs6.net] CLOSING THIS WEEK: Friday, 19 July Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Proposal -- IANA Naming Function Review [r20.rs6.net] CLOSING NEXT WEEK: Friday, 26 July 2019 Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws re SSAC and RSSAC Leadership [r20.rs6.net] CLOSING NEXT WEEK: Friday, 26 July 2019 Proposed IANA SLAs for Publishing LGRs/IDN Tables [r20.rs6.net] CLOSING NEXT WEEK: Friday, 26 July 2019 Draft Final Report of the Second Country Code Names Supporting Organization Review [r20.rs6.net] Close Date: 4 August 2019 Draft Financial Assumptions & Projections and Operating Initiatives for the Development of the Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan [r20.rs6.net] Close Date: Monday, 5 August 2019 Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System [r20.rs6.net] Close Date: Friday, 9 August 2019 Proposed Definition of Name Collisions and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collisions Analysis Project [r20.rs6.net] Close Date: Monday, 12 August 2019 Volume 1, Issue 32 | Archive [r20.rs6.net] | Next Issue: Thursday, 18 July 2019 ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Unsubscribe so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org [visitor.constantcontact.com] Update Profile [visitor.constantcontact.com] | About Constant Contact [constantcontact.com] Sent by david.olive at icann.org in collaboration with [Image removed by sender. Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today.][constantcontact.com] Try email marketing for free today! [constantcontact.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: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 16 03:05:07 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 09:05:07 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call 18th July In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I am sharing here the NCSG Policy call draft agenda scheduled in Wednesday 17th July. For council agenda, we don't have motion to vote other the one for the response to GAC communique which draft is still being edited and so need to be carefully reviewed. We got several topics for discussion such as the response to board resolution on epdp phase 1 recommendations and ICANN letter regarding data accuracy for EPDP. Both are critical and have to some extent impact on phase 2 workload and scope. For accuracy issue, the request was passed to EPDP team for input and I expect that our reps there will give some guidance. Another topic of interest will be the follow-up of pre-metting policy webinar as we got some "asks" from PDP WG leadership in particular subpro. Please review and feel free to suggest addition/amendment to the agenda. I. Introduction II. GNSO Council Call Preparation - Council agenda: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/agenda/draft-agenda-gnso-council-18jul2019-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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 16 03:13:59 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 09:13:59 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] FOR FINAL REVIEW: Revised Guidelines & Motion Template - Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum (11 July 2019) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Stephanie for sharing this. while this will come to council for adoption, it is critical to review and make changes at DT level. I would like ask everyone to review and see if there is any area of concern. Rafik Le lun. 15 juil. 2019 ? 22:37, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > > I must confess that I have missed the last couple of meetings on this > issue. As you can see, the final draft is nearly ready, we need to comment > asap. Please, folks who participated more closely in the IANA review, take > a look. Or tell me who I should forward this to to take a look. > cheers Steph > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [Gnso-bylaws-dt] FOR FINAL REVIEW: Revised Guidelines & Motion > Template - Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum (11 July 2019) > Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 21:04:56 +0000 > From: Julie Hedlund > To: gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org > > > Dear DT members, > > > > Per action item 2 below from the meeting on 10 July, please review the > revised version of the GUIDELINES & MOTION TEMPLATE: SECTION 1.3 APPROVAL > ACTION COMMUNITY FORUM DRAFT (11 July 2019) at: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v5qtCO0Ocrbkk6o2YVrsuIWwjTQsprdEmWBYD35OH6o/edit?usp=sharing. > The document also is attached in Word with redlines. > > > > The document will be on the agenda *for finalization/approval *at the > next meeting on *Wednesday, 24 July at 21:00 UTC*. In the meantime, DT > members are encouraged to make suggested edits and comments in the Google > document or in the Word document. > > > > Thank you very much for your consideration. > > > > Kind regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > > > *From: *Gnso-bylaws-dt > on behalf of Julie Hedlund > > *Date: *Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 4:59 PM > *To: *"gnso-bylaws-dt at icann.org" > > *Subject: *[Gnso-bylaws-dt] Actions & Notes: GNSO Drafting Team Meeting > 10 July 21:00 UTC > > > > Dear all, > > > > Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the GNSO > Drafting Team meeting held on 10 July 2019 (21:00-22:00 UTC). Staff have > posted these to the wiki space. *Please note that these are high-level > notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or > transcript**.* The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records > are posted on the wiki at: > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=111387729. > > > > Please note that all versions of the guidelines may be found on the wiki > at: > https://community.icann.org/display/GBIDT/Templates+and+Guidelines+Depository. > > > > > Best Regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director > > > > *Actions Items:* > > > > 1. *Joint ccNSO/GNSO Initiation of a Special IFR*: Staff will check on > the status of questions to ICANN Legal, specifically on whether the GNSO > and ccNSO can jointed initiate a Special IFR. (DONE ? see response in > separate message.) > 2. *Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum*: Staff will accept > the grammatical edits in the document from Heather Forrest and generate a > new version with the flagged issues/comments called out for DT > consideration (see below), including a timeline for the GNSO Council > actions. (DONE ? see documents for review in separate message.) > 3. *Preparation for 24 July Meeting*: Staff will circulate for DT > review the draft of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and > Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. (DONE ? see documents for > review in separate message.) > > > > *Notes:* > > > > 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided. > > > > 2. Section 18.12 Special IFRs -- Brief Update re: 15 July joint GRC/DT > meeting on Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Consultation on Initiating a Special > IFR:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ol8461abkOqzXSahZKkuLL-7GxDWklmA0wnK1CKwfgY/edit?usp=sharing > [docs.google.com] > > > > > -- What do we expect from the meeting on 15 July and how do we move > forward? Could the GRC be satisfied from the call on Monday, or would > there be additional deliberations? > > -- Expectation that it is a matter of clarification and coming to a common > understanding of the questions. The GRC and DT can finish their documents > and they would have two common approaches. > > > > *ACTION ITEM:* *Staff will check on the status of questions to ICANN > Legal, particularly as to whether the GNSO and ccNSO can jointly initiate a > Special IFR.* > > > > 3. Discussion/Edits re: Section 1.3 Approval Action Community Forum: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tR6YeATOl-_6ig7XKKluR3jwY8cLPYKoLCB-t6GhVNc/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > -- Staff and David McCauley noted that there is a real-time example of the > anticipated use of the Approval Action Community Forum to consider the > ccNSO?s request for a Fundamental Bylaws Amendment regarding the IANA > Naming Function Review Team's Composition. See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-iana-naming-function-2019-06-10-en > [icann.org] > > . > > -- Staff also noted that the EC Administration has accordingly requested, > per the Bylaws, that an Approval Action Community Forum should be scheduled > to take place during ICANN66 in Montreal. > > > > Edits/Comments for DT Consideration in the Google Doc (as called out in > the revised version dated 11 July): > > > > 1. Noting that although the current representative to the EC > Administration is the GNSO Council Chair, there is nothing to prevent the > GNSO Council from choosing a different person as its representative. Thus, > it is suggested that references to the GNSO Council Chair in the document > should be changed to GNSO Representative to the EC Administration (see page > 4 and onward). Maxim Alzoba also inserted a comment relating to this > issue, so we request that he should review this suggested edit. > 2. 4.3.1 Consultation Mechanism: > > a. Change ?If such a consultation is scheduled? to ?If such a > consultation occurs?. > > b. In response to a point made by David McCauley about ensuring that > the GNSO Council can meet the decision deadline of 21 days as specified in > the Bylaws, add to the last sentence, ?and in no event later than the > 21-day Approval Action Decision Period per Section 1.4 Annex D of the > Bylaws.? > > 1. 4.3.2 GNSO Council Decision and Informing the EC Administration: > > a. The DT discussed how to ensure that the GNSO Council?s actions to > decide on whether to support, object to, or abstain from the Approval > Action are completed within the above-mentioned 21-day period. Staff > suggested adding a timeline showing the timing of the activities. In > addition, staff has added the excerpt from the Bylaws with the relevant > details. > > b. On 11 July Wolf-Ulrich Knoben suggested edits to combine sections > 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 into one section. Staff has included those edits in the > version dated 11 July. > > 1. Staff also accepted all of the grammatical changes provided by > Heather Forrest. > > > > *ACTION ITEM: Staff will accept the grammatical edits in the document from > Heather Forrest and generate a new version with the flagged issues/comments > called out for DT consideration, including a timeline for the GNSO Council > actions.* > > > > 4. Next Meeting: 24 July: The DT will finalize its review of Section 1.3, > and begin review of Section 2.2 Petition Process for Specified Actions and > Section 2.3 Rejection Action Community Forum. > > > > *ACTION ITEM: Staff will circulate for DT review the draft of Section 2.2 > Petition Process for Specified Actions and Section 2.3 Rejection Action > Community Forum. * > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing 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 Jul 16 03:21:59 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 09:21:59 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: NCSG Draft Comment on Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System In-Reply-To: References: <189B286F-CDC5-42F5-8307-98A8EF2ABD39@gmail.com> Message-ID: hi all, this is reminder to continue the review , as Tomslin was also asking for additional input too. Best, Rafik Le ven. 12 juil. 2019 ? 00:01, Tatiana Tropina a ?crit : > Same: my support and big thanks. > Cheers, > Tanya > > On Thu 11. Jul 2019 at 16:50, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I endorse the submission of this document, Thanks to the drafters! >> >> Best, >> >> Martin Silva Valent >> >> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com >> >> >> *Partner | Silva.legal*martin at silva.legal >> >> *Director | Dat.as* >> martin.silva at dat.as >> >> Skype ID: mpsilvavalent >> Tel: +5491164993943 >> Libertador 5990 >> , >> Off. 406 >> Buenos Aires, Argentina. >> >> Este email, incluyendo adjuntos, podr?a contener informaci?n >> confidencial protegida por ley y es para uso exclusivo de su destinatario. >> Si Ud. no es el destinatario, se le advierte que cualquier uso, difusi?n, >> copia o retenci?n de este email o su contenido est? estrictamente >> prohibido. Si Ud. recibi? este email por error, por favor >> avise inmediatamente al remitente por tel?fono o email y borre el mismo de >> su computadora. / This e-mail, including any attachments, may >> contain information that is protected by law as privileged and >> confidential, and is transmitted for the sole use of the intended >> recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified >> that any use, dissemination, copying or retention of this e-mail or the >> information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or >> reply e-mail, and permanently delete this e-mail from your computer >> system. >> >> On 11 Jul 2019, at 11:05, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> I support the submission of this comment. >> >> I also appreciate that it has been prepared with a full month for us to >> review its content. >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Thursday, 11 July 2019 10:36, Tomslin Samme-Nlar < >> mesumbeslin at GMAIL.COM> wrote: >> >> Bonjour ? tous, >> >> Here below is a Google doc link to the draft comment (mostly Milton's >> thoughts with a few tweaks) on Evolving the Governance of the Root Server >> System ( >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rss-governance-2019-05-23-en) for >> your review and comment. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azvCLRCk62OQDfujF9qqz4_alDN5DhTrFDeI465yhRg/edit >> >> On Rafik's recommendation, we'll like to solicit your views, input and >> any proposed additions early before finalizing the draft. Any contribution >> will be appreciated. >> >> Very best regards, >> Tomslin >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.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 elsa.saade at gmail.com Wed Jul 17 01:05:20 2019 From: elsa.saade at gmail.com (Elsa S) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 18:05:20 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: NCSG Draft Comment on Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System In-Reply-To: References: <189B286F-CDC5-42F5-8307-98A8EF2ABD39@gmail.com> Message-ID: Just reviewed and added a couple of questions, tiny edits here and there. Thanks Rafik! E. ? On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:22 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > hi all, > > this is reminder to continue the review , as Tomslin was also asking for > additional input too. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 12 juil. 2019 ? 00:01, Tatiana Tropina > a ?crit : > >> Same: my support and big thanks. >> Cheers, >> Tanya >> >> On Thu 11. Jul 2019 at 16:50, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < >> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I endorse the submission of this document, Thanks to the drafters! >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Martin Silva Valent >>> >>> mpsilvavalent at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> *Partner | Silva.legal*martin at silva.legal >>> >>> *Director | Dat.as* >>> martin.silva at dat.as >>> >>> Skype ID: mpsilvavalent >>> Tel: +5491164993943 >>> Libertador 5990 >>> , >>> Off. 406 >>> >>> Buenos Aires, Argentina >>> >>> . >>> >>> Este email, incluyendo adjuntos, podr?a contener informaci?n >>> confidencial protegida por ley y es para uso exclusivo de su destinatario. >>> Si Ud. no es el destinatario, se le advierte que cualquier uso, difusi?n, >>> copia o retenci?n de este email o su contenido est? estrictamente >>> prohibido. Si Ud. recibi? este email por error, por favor >>> avise inmediatamente al remitente por tel?fono o email y borre el mismo de >>> su computadora. / This e-mail, including any attachments, may >>> contain information that is protected by law as privileged and >>> confidential, and is transmitted for the sole use of the intended >>> recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified >>> that any use, dissemination, copying or retention of this e-mail or the >>> information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>> this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or >>> reply e-mail, and permanently delete this e-mail from your computer >>> system. >>> >>> On 11 Jul 2019, at 11:05, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>> I support the submission of this comment. >>> >>> I also appreciate that it has been prepared with a full month for us to >>> review its content. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On Thursday, 11 July 2019 10:36, Tomslin Samme-Nlar < >>> mesumbeslin at GMAIL.COM> wrote: >>> >>> Bonjour ? tous, >>> >>> Here below is a Google doc link to the draft comment (mostly Milton's >>> thoughts with a few tweaks) on Evolving the Governance of the Root Server >>> System ( >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rss-governance-2019-05-23-en) for >>> your review and comment. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azvCLRCk62OQDfujF9qqz4_alDN5DhTrFDeI465yhRg/edit >>> >>> On Rafik's recommendation, we'll like to solicit your views, input and >>> any proposed additions early before finalizing the draft. Any contribution >>> will be appreciated. >>> >>> Very best regards, >>> Tomslin >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.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 > -- -- 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 Thu Jul 18 03:02:50 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:02:50 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] GNSO Policy Development Process on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, this is reminder about drafting the public comment. I created the google doc here https://docs.google.com/document/d/157K0cb3OFP8-ny4ERwl7ilh8tUjy5NK7gnnP0lfwO5U/edit Best, Rafik Le ven. 12 juil. 2019 ? 15:46, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi all, > > The board just initiated the public comment/consultation on " IGO-INGO > Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Recommendations" , > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-recommendations-2019-07-11-en. > I believe since this was discussed for long time at council level, the PC > should take the lead on drafting the comment on this one and response is > quite straight forward since it is more about process than substance. > anyone wants to volunteer to be pendholder? > > Best, > > Rafik > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 16:43:40 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 22:43:40 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on Streamlining ICANN Reviews In-Reply-To: References: <95f22a07fe6511d9aa8deda7d45dad45@gutierrez.se> Message-ID: hi all, reminder that our last opportunity to submit comment is the 26th july. Best, Rafik Le sam. 13 juil. 2019 ? 06:10, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi, > > We can submit by 26th July so we need to use that time to rework the draft. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 14:46 Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> the draft needs more work and refining. I am keen to ask for extension >> (and likely to get it) in order for us to have a substantial and >> substantive input in this process. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> Le ven. 12 juil. 2019 ? 06:42, Carlos Raul Gutierrez < >> carlosraul at gutierrez.se> a ?crit : >> >>> Hello Rafik! >>> >>> I have a very sanguine view on the future of organizational reviews now >>> that ICANN is 21 years old: each organization (member of the empowered >>> community) should do its own strategic and performance analysis on a yearly >>> basis and publish it in a format that is comparable between groups. >>> Example: PDP *.0 >>> >>> If they don't, no budget increases...... >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> --- >>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >>> +506 8837 7176 >>> Aparatado 1571-1000 >>> COSTA RICA >>> >>> >>> >>> El 2019-07-11 09:20, Rafik Dammak escribi?: >>> >>> hi all, >>> >>> we have this comment for review. it still needs works and to be refined. >>> so help is welcome here because the subject . >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> De : Thato Mfikwe >>> Date: jeu. 11 juil. 2019 ? 16:59 >>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on Streamlining ICANN Reviews >>> To: >>> >>> >>> Hi members, >>> >>> Please kindly find, review and comment on the NCSG Process Proposal for >>> Streamlining Organisational Reviews >>> , >>> Google doc link: NCSG draft >>> comment, >>> this comment was prepared by volunteers for your review, consideration and >>> comment. >>> >>> Please note that the closing date for submission is 15 July, in 4 days, >>> so your input will be highly appreciated before then and please highlight >>> any proposed additions to this comment, thanks. >>> >>> Thato Mfikwe. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 18 23:18:22 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 20:18:22 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG representatives on the GNSO Council Standing Committee on ICANN Budget & Operations Message-ID: Dear all, Here is the current membership of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=74580769 We need to refresh our membership soon as I will no longer be on the Council and thus able to represent the NCSG there. I am happy to stay on until the AGM if absolutely necessary, but I would rather open up my seat sooner for a fresh appointment. My thinking here is that we are about to enter into the preparation process for the FY21 budget, so I think it would be advantageous for the NCSG to consider now who should be our representatives here so that there is continuity throughout the budgetary process. As you can see, we also have Martin as a member of the Standing Committee. I am not sure if Martin is interested in continuing on - I will leave that to him to confirm. Thanks. Best wishes, Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 19 07:51:12 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 13:51:12 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG representatives on the GNSO Council Standing Committee on ICANN Budget & Operations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, thanks for the note, I am in the SCBO as obsever like the rest of the council leadership team. The review of composition will be at each AGM and then confirmation of appointments by SG/C after 3 weeks as mandated by the charter. It is more realistic to have a councillor to volunteer till AGM as alternate. The SCBO can initiate through the year though to get SMEs but I doubt there is an appetite for that. @Martin can you confirm continuation. I think Stephanie is also there as SME. adding another councillor will be helpful to join them. Best, Rafik Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 ? 05:18, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Dear all, > > Here is the current membership of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on > ICANN Budget and Operations: > https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=74580769 > > We need to refresh our membership soon as I will no longer be on the > Council and thus able to represent the NCSG there. I am happy to stay on > until the AGM if absolutely necessary, but I would rather open up my seat > sooner for a fresh appointment. > > My thinking here is that we are about to enter into the preparation > process for the FY21 budget, so I think it would be advantageous for the > NCSG to consider now who should be our representatives here so that there > is continuity throughout the budgetary process. > > As you can see, we also have Martin as a member of the Standing Committee. > I am not sure if Martin is interested in continuing on - I will leave that > to him to confirm. Thanks. > > Best wishes, Ayden > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jul 19 20:02:03 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 17:02:03 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG representatives on the GNSO Council Standing Committee on ICANN Budget & Operations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Rafik, I do appreciate that usually we change our appointments around the AGM, however as the budget process will kick off before then, I thought it might be valuable to have some more continuity in place and the one Councilor to remain active today and through the AGM when the budget development process continues. I think this is particularly important if the new representative does not already have an understanding of how ICANN's budgetary process works, as it could be a bit more difficult coming in later. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Friday, 19 July 2019 05:51, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > thanks for the note, > I am in the SCBO as obsever like the rest of the council leadership team. > The review of composition will be at each AGM and then confirmation of appointments by SG/C after 3 weeks as mandated by the charter. It is more realistic to have a councillor to volunteer till AGM as alternate. The SCBO can initiate through the year though to get SMEs but I doubt there is an appetite for that. > @Martin can you confirm continuation. I think Stephanie is also there as SME. adding another councillor will be helpful to join them. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 ? 05:18, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > >> Dear all, >> >> Here is the current membership of the GNSO Council's Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=74580769 >> >> We need to refresh our membership soon as I will no longer be on the Council and thus able to represent the NCSG there. I am happy to stay on until the AGM if absolutely necessary, but I would rather open up my seat sooner for a fresh appointment. >> >> My thinking here is that we are about to enter into the preparation process for the FY21 budget, so I think it would be advantageous for the NCSG to consider now who should be our representatives here so that there is continuity throughout the budgetary process. >> >> As you can see, we also have Martin as a member of the Standing Committee. I am not sure if Martin is interested in continuing on - I will leave that to him to confirm. Thanks. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Jul 23 15:28:56 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 21:28:56 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder NCSG Comment on Streamlining ICANN Reviews In-Reply-To: References: <95f22a07fe6511d9aa8deda7d45dad45@gutierrez.se> Message-ID: Hi, sending reminder on the streamlining ICANN reviews comment, last chance to submit is this Friday. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 18 juil. 2019 ? 22:43, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > hi all, > > reminder that our last opportunity to submit comment is the 26th july. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le sam. 13 juil. 2019 ? 06:10, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi, >> >> We can submit by 26th July so we need to use that time to rework the >> draft. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 14:46 Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> the draft needs more work and refining. I am keen to ask for extension >>> (and likely to get it) in order for us to have a substantial and >>> substantive input in this process. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> Le ven. 12 juil. 2019 ? 06:42, Carlos Raul Gutierrez < >>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se> a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hello Rafik! >>>> >>>> I have a very sanguine view on the future of organizational reviews now >>>> that ICANN is 21 years old: each organization (member of the empowered >>>> community) should do its own strategic and performance analysis on a yearly >>>> basis and publish it in a format that is comparable between groups. >>>> Example: PDP *.0 >>>> >>>> If they don't, no budget increases...... >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> --- >>>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >>>> +506 8837 7176 >>>> Aparatado 1571-1000 >>>> COSTA RICA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> El 2019-07-11 09:20, Rafik Dammak escribi?: >>>> >>>> hi all, >>>> >>>> we have this comment for review. it still needs works and to be >>>> refined. so help is welcome here because the subject . >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>> De : Thato Mfikwe >>>> Date: jeu. 11 juil. 2019 ? 16:59 >>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on Streamlining ICANN Reviews >>>> To: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi members, >>>> >>>> Please kindly find, review and comment on the NCSG Process Proposal >>>> for Streamlining Organisational Reviews >>>> , >>>> Google doc link: NCSG draft >>>> comment, >>>> this comment was prepared by volunteers for your review, consideration and >>>> comment. >>>> >>>> Please note that the closing date for submission is 15 July, in 4 days, >>>> so your input will be highly appreciated before then and please highlight >>>> any proposed additions to this comment, thanks. >>>> >>>> Thato Mfikwe. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing 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 Jul 23 15:29:40 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 21:29:40 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Reminder GNSO Policy Development Process on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi, reminder about volunteering for this public comment. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 18 juil. 2019 ? 09:02, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi, > > this is reminder about drafting the public comment. I created the google > doc here > https://docs.google.com/document/d/157K0cb3OFP8-ny4ERwl7ilh8tUjy5NK7gnnP0lfwO5U/edit > > Best, > > Rafik > > > Le ven. 12 juil. 2019 ? 15:46, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> The board just initiated the public comment/consultation on " IGO-INGO >> Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Recommendations" , >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-recommendations-2019-07-11-en. >> I believe since this was discussed for long time at council level, the PC >> should take the lead on drafting the comment on this one and response is >> quite straight forward since it is more about process than substance. >> anyone wants to volunteer to be pendholder? >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 23 22:23:46 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 19:23:46 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed text: role of the community In-Reply-To: <1180E348-6C77-4B2A-BA7D-11498FE05466@icann.org> References: <1180E348-6C77-4B2A-BA7D-11498FE05466@icann.org> Message-ID: Just highlighting this proposal as it would see the entire GNSO have just two representatives on the Advisory Board overseeing the disbursement of auction proceeds... I think four representatives would be more appropriate, one for each house... - Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 13:45, Emily Barabas wrote: > Dear CCWG members, > > A small group of volunteers comprised of Erika Mann and Alan Greenberg volunteered to draft a proposal for the CCWG regarding the role of the ICANN community to include in the Final Report. Please find attached their proposal for your review and feedback. > > This input, along with all other input received over the last few weeks, will be incorporated into a revised draft Final Report that will be used as a basis for discussion on our 31 July call. > > Kind regards, > > Emily > > Emily Barabas | Policy Manager > > ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Advisory_Board-2019-07-17-v02-clean.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16044 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 01:05:19 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 07:05:19 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Draft: NCSG Comment on the SSAC and RSSAC ICANN Bylaws Review. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, we have this short comment for review and endorsement. the deadline for submission is this Friday. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- De : Akinremi Peter Taiwo Date: mer. 24 juil. 2019 ? 06:13 Subject: Draft: NCSG Comment on the SSAC and RSSAC ICANN Bylaws Review. To: NCUC-discuss Cc: Rafik Dammak Dear all, A few points has been drafted in response of the revisions to the ICANN Bylaws SSAC and RSSAC Leadership for your review. The public comment is only seeking the community view on the minor proposed changes of chair limited term and structure of a single chair and vice chair. This I believe is a standard. After the review of reference documents, the draft is in support of the proposed changes. Below is the link for your quick edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W9wDsaGzlh4zK-qtRKjDJNbvViqpXIaApLfDzB-PUOo/edit Regards. Peter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 05:04:19 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:04:19 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comment - Update Fund. Bylaws Amendment - IANA Naming Func. Rev. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, another comment to review on timely manner. it is short but important comment to submit. the topic was brought several times during the joint ccnso-gnso meeting. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- De : Rapha?l Beauregard-Lacroix Date: mer. 24 juil. 2019 ? 11:00 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comment - Update Fund. Bylaws Amendment - IANA Naming Func. Rev. To: Dear all, Below a comment for review, drafted by Farzaneh and me. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q6Ngao33YpzGt9ziHDtSYiYHA9fJmqAcijQcWr9eDiE/edit Note: being about a fundamental bylaws amendment, this comment is of special importance ;) Deadline for submission is 26, so it must go to PC asap. Thanks, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Jul 24 05:11:24 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 02:11:24 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comment - Update Fund. Bylaws Amendment - IANA Naming Func. Rev. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I support the submission of this comment. -- Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 23:04, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > another comment to review on timely manner. > it is short but important comment to submit. the topic was brought several times during the joint ccnso-gnso meeting. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > De : Rapha?l Beauregard-Lacroix > Date: mer. 24 juil. 2019 ? 11:00 > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comment - Update Fund. Bylaws Amendment - IANA Naming Func. Rev. > To: > > Dear all, > > Below a comment for review, drafted by Farzaneh and me. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q6Ngao33YpzGt9ziHDtSYiYHA9fJmqAcijQcWr9eDiE/edit > > Note: being about a fundamental bylaws amendment, this comment is of special importance ;) > > Deadline for submission is 26, so it must go to PC asap. > > Thanks, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Jul 24 20:29:48 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:29:48 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Draft Financial Assumptions & Projections and Operating Initiatives for the development of Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0tZUE-zzPp0_xafZ139hC45GmwzBYxhWdfSk7LymVGJ4ixmaqiWrIut2aQOzYw6qiyQAAfETSWh_pXWU3BlCjhokZ7bE1o2Fd4Lvm7Ui6mI=@ferdeline.com> On our call yesterday, the Finance Committee reviewed the proposed comment on the financial assumptions and has made some modifications to paragraph 5 of page 1, as we identified some factual errors in the original language. The updated draft can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15MRe6L9AkkS1e0y5LBzcLRxMfQt5Shi0RH7jIBKq8To/edit?usp=sharing It is not anticipated that the Finance Committee will review this comment again, unless the Policy Committee flags any issues with it, so for now... over to you Rafik and members of the Policy Committee to consider endorsing it ;-) -- Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Wednesday, 10 July 2019 17:19, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi, > > Could members of the Policy Committee please review the below comment before 22 July and advise if you have any questions or concerns. The Finance Committee will be considering input on our call of 23 July. We will then get a new version to the membership list and Policy Committee for your potential endorsement. Thanks. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Monday, 8 July 2019 18:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> ICANN has opened an opportunity for public comment on the Financial Assumptions that are embedded into the Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan. >> >> The NCSG Finance Committee has drafted a response to this document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15MRe6L9AkkS1e0y5LBzcLRxMfQt5Shi0RH7jIBKq8To/edit >> >> When you have a moment, please can you review our proposed response and provide feedback either in the Google Doc itself (with your name attached) or on this list by 22 July. >> >> This will allow the Finance Committee to review your input ahead of our next call on 23 July. >> >> Further information on the Financial Assumptions can be found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-financial-projections-fy2021-2025-2019-06-14-en >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> on behalf of the NCSG Finance Committee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 25 15:50:50 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:50:50 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed text: role of the community In-Reply-To: <575AA3EE-3724-417C-8492-12C7B8DE5178@tucows.com> References: <1180E348-6C77-4B2A-BA7D-11498FE05466@icann.org> <342BAB5E-4BEC-477D-9D1A-F0C69E3F23D6@icann.org> <575AA3EE-3724-417C-8492-12C7B8DE5178@tucows.com> Message-ID: Excellent proposal from Elliot Noss; I hope that our representative on this working group may extend support for his proposal. Thanks! Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Thursday, 25 July 2019 09:16, Elliot Noss wrote: > I would like to suggest a reworking and renaming of the constitution of the Advisory Board. > > First the name. An ?advisory board? suggests advice. This group is a decision-making board. It should be named appropriately. At ICANN, ?Advisory Committee? = recommend to the board. This is not the nature of the task here. > > I am not religious about the specific name, but the name should clearly connote its responsibilities. I will suggest ?Grants Committee? and make lots of room for feedback. > > Second, 2 persons per SO/AC for Advisory Board would mean to me: > > - 2x GNSO > - 2x ccNSO > - 2x GAC > - 2x ALAC > - 2x SSAC > - 2x RSSAC > > This seems egalitarian at the highest level but inappropriate to the task. I would like to suggest two alterations. First, there is no need for SSAC or RSSAC to be involved here. I respect both groups and think their work is important in relation to the core mission (some of my best friends are??). They are also appointed and, most importantly, are specific subject matter experts by design and that subject matter is not related to the task. Of course some projects will have a technical element but there are technical skills throughout the community sufficient to cover this AND many members of those two committees are also members of other parts of the community and will be able to scratch their philanthropic itch. > > Next, I strongly feel that the GNSO should have 4-6 seats. The two most important reasons are that it is a GNSO program that has generated the excess funds and the GNSO has essentially grown into two separate groups that are more about balancing each other than they are one cohesive group as the rest of the groups are. Of course there are different positions in each group, but the GNSO uniquely has two VERY different personalities in the CPH and NCPH. > > I suggest the following: > > - 6x GNSO > - 2x ccNSO > - 2x GAC > - 2x ALAC > > This is a good group size as well. 10-12 is the right dynamic for a group like this. > > I would close here by noting a strong precedent for fitting the constitution of a community group to its context. During the original ICANN restructuring, we (Tucows) created the position that the ALAC should have a disproportionate representation on the nomcom. The original document is here (it is a fascinating historical read for ICANN history fans in any event and at the time was sometimes mistakenly linked to as the actual document produced by then-ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn): > > http://www.byte.org/heathrow/heathrow-declaration-v0r0d5-032502.html > > The context was that the nomcom was replacing the public vote and that ALAC was intended to best represent users interests. This was hotly debated at the time but we prevailed and this has remained an important and influential part of the ICANN structure. > > The same concept of context applies here. > > Thanks. > > EN > >> On Jul 24, 2019, at 10:50 AM, Emily Barabas wrote: >> >> Hi Elliot, >> >> Here you go: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11dusiYnVTZhb_OvwZTvgKf_-5lF9NuzTAq6uV0fwYis/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs >> >> Kind regards, >> Emily >> >> From: Elliot Noss >> Date: Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 16:45 >> To: Emily Barabas >> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" >> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed text: role of the community >> >> Could we please put this in a google doc for easier commenting? Or is it ok if I do (I would need all the email addresses in order to share)? If I have missed some reason we can?t do that, apologies in advance. Thanks. >> >> EN >> >>> On Jul 23, 2019, at 12:45 PM, Emily Barabas wrote: >>> >>> Dear CCWG members, >>> >>> A small group of volunteers comprised of Erika Mann and Alan Greenberg volunteered to draft a proposal for the CCWG regarding the role of the ICANN community to include in the Final Report. Please find attached their proposal for your review and feedback. >>> >>> This input, along with all other input received over the last few weeks, will be incorporated into a revised draft Final Report that will be used as a basis for discussion on our 31 July call. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Emily >>> >>> Emily Barabas | Policy Manager >>> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >>> Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing listCcwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds >>> _______________________________________________ >>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ([https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=jk7n-M4s2YmuuENS1pzszm3xggx3GT11xtLzPPXzQ7U&s=uw-Jm3Omao4saa47gUnB3Ta9s3jp_fpoAioaV_ptu88&e=)) and the website Terms of Service ([https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=jk7n-M4s2YmuuENS1pzszm3xggx3GT11xtLzPPXzQ7U&s=CwJSnW1MBVgn6NIK-hamL97R6LprjDb4F_UsseGJD80&e=)). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 25 16:37:29 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:37:29 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] quick response requested Fw: Fwd: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations Message-ID: <4nlNKEp3en9oGuOzgIVtP1RiTgMgQb2jJU6UwHadznn6ueE0Tozxl2vncLItr_bvGaB1aZZ6UM2ryNAyzEak5r6LmZhYt873juufAQT80BI=@ferdeline.com> Hi all, Please see below a comment that Amr has raised on the NCSG-Discuss list. I would like to propose that we send the below comment to the Council list on behalf of the NCSG. With apologies to Amr for the plagiarism, I have basically copied and pasted his message, making a few small edits, as I think it makes the case well. Are there any requested edits or objections to this being sent? Ayden F?rdeline The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group supports the comments raised by the Registrar Stakeholder Group. We too object to modifying Recommendation 12. Recommendation 12 received sufficient support within the EPDP team to be included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was among the small minority of groups not supporting it. We would object to any attempt to re-open discussions on the substance of a recommendation in discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, regardless of who raised it, because this is not procedurally correct. Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are meant to take place at the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process). These discussions have already taken place, the report and recommendations were finalized, the recommendations were voted on by the GNSO Council, and they have been sent to the ICANN Board for its consideration. ??????? Original Message ??????? On Thursday, 25 July 2019 08:23, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > I?m forwarding this thread from the GNSO Council mailing list, because I?m concerned with the Business Constituency?s attempt at amending a recommendation coming out of phase 1 of the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. > > The discussion below concerns purpose 2 within recommendation 1 as well as recommendation 12 in the phase 1 [Final Report](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf) (concerning the ?registrant organization? field), which were not adopted by the ICANN Board pending concerns they have raised. These were addressed during the Board?s meeting with the GNSO Council at ICANN65, and the Council is now drafting a more formal response in the form of correspondence (draft attached to this email). > > My concern is mainly with the recommendation 12 discussion. This recommendation received enough support within the EPDP Team to be included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was among the groups not supporting it. They are now attempting to re-open discussions on the substance of the recommendation in discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, which is not procedurally correct. Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are menat to take place at the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process). These discussions have already taken place, the report and recommendations were finalized, voted on by the GNSO Council and sent to the ICANN Board for its consideration. > > So far, the Contracted Parties have pushed back against the Business Constituency?s attempt to re-litigate recommendation 12. I hope that our own representatives on the GNSO Council join in, and do the same. > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: "Darcy Southwell" >> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations >> Date: July 24, 2019 at 9:44:19 PM GMT+2 >> To: "Drazek, Keith" >> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" , "council at gnso.icann.org" >> Reply-To: "Darcy Southwell" >> >> Thanks you, Keith. >> >> The Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) agrees that it's outside the Council's remit to modify, or even suggest modification of, a consensus recommendation from a PDP working group and therefore objects to modifying Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option. The Council should seek to formalize the rationale provided to the Board in Marrakech and resubmit the consensus recommendation to the Board for approval. Therefore, RrSG supports the Council's letter to the Board as written regarding Recommendation 12. >> >> Regarding Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, the EPDP Team and Board have been quite clear that further legal analysis is necessary to ensure Purpose 2 is drafted consistent with applicable laws. In its Final Report, the EPDP Team recommended Purpose 2 be further evaluated during phase 2 of the EPDP. In its resolution, the Board clearly instructed ICANN Org to engage the DPAs to accomplish the necessary legal analysis to perform the work. That legal analysis must be completed before the EPDP Team can even begin to consider how to revise Purpose 2. Further, it is not typical for the Council to instruct a PDP as to when it works on such specific tasks. It is up to the PDP Working Group, with its leadership and coordinating with ICANN staff, to prioritize its work. So far, the EPDP Team has prioritized the work related to the System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, consistent with its Charter, and with the concerns of many of the GNSO Councilors. At this point, the RrSG sees no reason for the Council to intervene to reprioritize the Purpose 2 work ahead of the chartered work. >> >> Best, >> Darcy >> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:30 AM Drazek, Keith via council wrote: >> >>> Hi Marie, >>> >>> Thanks for your initial feedback here, and for the discussion during yesterday?s Council call. >>> >>> On your second point below, related to the Board?s treatment of Recommendation 12, I believe it is outside the Council?s remit to suggest, or even allow, a modification to the Consensus Policy recommendation delivered to us by the EPDP Team, and subsequently delivered by Council to the Board. In my view, it is the role of Council to now hold the Board accountable for its decision to not accept Rec 12 in full, and to call for the Board to accept it following the clarification they requested. >>> >>> I welcome further discussion on these items following discussion with our respective SGs and Cs, but that?s my current view. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> From: Marie Pattullo >>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:53 PM >>> To: Drazek, Keith >>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; council at gnso.icann.org >>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations >>> >>> Hi Keith, >>> >>> Thanks for sharing the draft. I?m afraid I haven?t been able to discuss this much with our members yet (sorry) but on an initial reading, the BC does have some concerns. >>> >>> On your first point, on rec 1, while the first sentence is great, we have problems with the second. As you know from the comments we attached to Janis? letter, we really need to give the EPDP Team a clear instruction to reword this and replace the placeholder language; I understand that it?s not on the Team?s roadmap right now. We really think that at a minimum, Council needs to tell the Team to do that and get it back ASAP for Board action. We all agree that the EPDP should deal with this, so we really do need a purpose 2 (for 3rd party access) for the Board to adopt. >>> >>> As for your 2nd para, on rec 12, we don?t agree that it should just be resubmitted as is. As you know, the BC really does think that as far as the ORG field goes, Rec 12 should be amended to remove the deletion option. There could always be an option of to allow the contracted parties to update any inaccuracies in the ORG field, as appropriate, if they need that. >>> >>> Looking forward to the discussion! >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Marie >>> >>> From: council On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith via council >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 11:49 AM >>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org >>> Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> In preparation for our Council meeting this week, please review the attached draft letter to the ICANN Board concerning next steps on the two EPDP Phase 1 recommendations not accepted in full by the Board. >>> >>> As you will recall, we had a good conversation with the ICANN Board during our working session lunch, and we committed to following up on the issue. The draft letter is self-explanatory, and our goal is to ensure a common understanding between Council and Board before we take our formal action to request Board reconsideration on Recommendation 12. We want to avoid an ongoing back-and-forth on the issue, so our hope is this letter will pave the way to a clear resolution. >>> >>> Please review before our Council meeting. >>> >>> Thanks to Rafik and Pam for leading this work while I was on PTO. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> council mailing list >>> council at gnso.icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Update on EPDP Phase 1 consultation process - 17 July 2019.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 19501 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja Thu Jul 25 16:47:19 2019 From: aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:47:19 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] quick response requested Fw: Fwd: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations In-Reply-To: <4nlNKEp3en9oGuOzgIVtP1RiTgMgQb2jJU6UwHadznn6ueE0Tozxl2vncLItr_bvGaB1aZZ6UM2ryNAyzEak5r6LmZhYt873juufAQT80BI=@ferdeline.com> References: <4nlNKEp3en9oGuOzgIVtP1RiTgMgQb2jJU6UwHadznn6ueE0Tozxl2vncLItr_bvGaB1aZZ6UM2ryNAyzEak5r6LmZhYt873juufAQT80BI=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi Ayden and all, Thanks for reacting to this so quickly. For my part, no objection to any plagiarism taking place. ? It might also be worthwhile to point out that the NCSG supports the current form of the draft Council letter/response to the ICANN Board. Thanks again. Amr Sent from Mobile On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 3:37 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi all, > > Please see below a comment that Amr has raised on the NCSG-Discuss list. I would like to propose that we send the below comment to the Council list on behalf of the NCSG. > > With apologies to Amr for the plagiarism, I have basically copied and pasted his message, making a few small edits, as I think it makes the case well. Are there any requested edits or objections to this being sent? > > Ayden F?rdeline > > The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group supports the comments raised by the Registrar Stakeholder Group. We too object to modifying Recommendation 12. > > Recommendation 12 received sufficient support within the EPDP team to be included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was among the small minority of groups not supporting it. We would object to any attempt to re-open discussions on the substance of a recommendation in discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, regardless of who raised it, because this is not procedurally correct. > > Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are meant to take place at the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process). These discussions have already taken place, the report and recommendations were finalized, the recommendations were voted on by the GNSO Council, and they have been sent to the ICANN Board for its consideration. > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 08:23, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I?m forwarding this thread from the GNSO Council mailing list, because I?m concerned with the Business Constituency?s attempt at amending a recommendation coming out of phase 1 of the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. >> >> The discussion below concerns purpose 2 within recommendation 1 as well as recommendation 12 in the phase 1 [Final Report](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf) (concerning the ?registrant organization? field), which were not adopted by the ICANN Board pending concerns they have raised. These were addressed during the Board?s meeting with the GNSO Council at ICANN65, and the Council is now drafting a more formal response in the form of correspondence (draft attached to this email). >> >> My concern is mainly with the recommendation 12 discussion. This recommendation received enough support within the EPDP Team to be included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was among the groups not supporting it. They are now attempting to re-open discussions on the substance of the recommendation in discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, which is not procedurally correct. Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are menat to take place at the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process). These discussions have already taken place, the report and recommendations were finalized, voted on by the GNSO Council and sent to the ICANN Board for its consideration. >> >> So far, the Contracted Parties have pushed back against the Business Constituency?s attempt to re-litigate recommendation 12. I hope that our own representatives on the GNSO Council join in, and do the same. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> From: "Darcy Southwell" >>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations >>> Date: July 24, 2019 at 9:44:19 PM GMT+2 >>> To: "Drazek, Keith" >>> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" , "council at gnso.icann.org" >>> Reply-To: "Darcy Southwell" >>> >>> Thanks you, Keith. >>> >>> The Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) agrees that it's outside the Council's remit to modify, or even suggest modification of, a consensus recommendation from a PDP working group and therefore objects to modifying Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option. The Council should seek to formalize the rationale provided to the Board in Marrakech and resubmit the consensus recommendation to the Board for approval. Therefore, RrSG supports the Council's letter to the Board as written regarding Recommendation 12. >>> >>> Regarding Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, the EPDP Team and Board have been quite clear that further legal analysis is necessary to ensure Purpose 2 is drafted consistent with applicable laws. In its Final Report, the EPDP Team recommended Purpose 2 be further evaluated during phase 2 of the EPDP. In its resolution, the Board clearly instructed ICANN Org to engage the DPAs to accomplish the necessary legal analysis to perform the work. That legal analysis must be completed before the EPDP Team can even begin to consider how to revise Purpose 2. Further, it is not typical for the Council to instruct a PDP as to when it works on such specific tasks. It is up to the PDP Working Group, with its leadership and coordinating with ICANN staff, to prioritize its work. So far, the EPDP Team has prioritized the work related to the System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, consistent with its Charter, and with the concerns of many of the GNSO Councilors. At this point, the RrSG sees no reason for the Council to intervene to reprioritize the Purpose 2 work ahead of the chartered work. >>> >>> Best, >>> Darcy >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:30 AM Drazek, Keith via council wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Marie, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your initial feedback here, and for the discussion during yesterday?s Council call. >>>> >>>> On your second point below, related to the Board?s treatment of Recommendation 12, I believe it is outside the Council?s remit to suggest, or even allow, a modification to the Consensus Policy recommendation delivered to us by the EPDP Team, and subsequently delivered by Council to the Board. In my view, it is the role of Council to now hold the Board accountable for its decision to not accept Rec 12 in full, and to call for the Board to accept it following the clarification they requested. >>>> >>>> I welcome further discussion on these items following discussion with our respective SGs and Cs, but that?s my current view. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Keith >>>> >>>> From: Marie Pattullo >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:53 PM >>>> To: Drazek, Keith >>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; council at gnso.icann.org >>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations >>>> >>>> Hi Keith, >>>> >>>> Thanks for sharing the draft. I?m afraid I haven?t been able to discuss this much with our members yet (sorry) but on an initial reading, the BC does have some concerns. >>>> >>>> On your first point, on rec 1, while the first sentence is great, we have problems with the second. As you know from the comments we attached to Janis? letter, we really need to give the EPDP Team a clear instruction to reword this and replace the placeholder language; I understand that it?s not on the Team?s roadmap right now. We really think that at a minimum, Council needs to tell the Team to do that and get it back ASAP for Board action. We all agree that the EPDP should deal with this, so we really do need a purpose 2 (for 3rd party access) for the Board to adopt. >>>> >>>> As for your 2nd para, on rec 12, we don?t agree that it should just be resubmitted as is. As you know, the BC really does think that as far as the ORG field goes, Rec 12 should be amended to remove the deletion option. There could always be an option of to allow the contracted parties to update any inaccuracies in the ORG field, as appropriate, if they need that. >>>> >>>> Looking forward to the discussion! >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Marie >>>> >>>> From: council On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith via council >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 11:49 AM >>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org >>>> Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> In preparation for our Council meeting this week, please review the attached draft letter to the ICANN Board concerning next steps on the two EPDP Phase 1 recommendations not accepted in full by the Board. >>>> >>>> As you will recall, we had a good conversation with the ICANN Board during our working session lunch, and we committed to following up on the issue. The draft letter is self-explanatory, and our goal is to ensure a common understanding between Council and Board before we take our formal action to request Board reconsideration on Recommendation 12. We want to avoid an ongoing back-and-forth on the issue, so our hope is this letter will pave the way to a clear resolution. >>>> >>>> Please review before our Council meeting. >>>> >>>> Thanks to Rafik and Pam for leading this work while I was on PTO. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Keith >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> council mailing list >>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Thu Jul 25 17:07:45 2019 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 11:07:45 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] quick response requested Fw: Fwd: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <4nlNKEp3en9oGuOzgIVtP1RiTgMgQb2jJU6UwHadznn6ueE0Tozxl2vncLItr_bvGaB1aZZ6UM2ryNAyzEak5r6LmZhYt873juufAQT80BI=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Looks good to me. Nothing to comment but have my support. Martin Silva On Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 10:47 AM Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi Ayden and all, > > Thanks for reacting to this so quickly. For my part, no objection to any > plagiarism taking place. ? > > It might also be worthwhile to point out that the NCSG supports the > current form of the draft Council letter/response to the ICANN Board. > > Thanks again. > > Amr > > Sent from Mobile > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 3:37 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Please see below a comment that Amr has raised on the NCSG-Discuss list. I > would like to propose that we send the below comment to the Council list on > behalf of the NCSG. > > With apologies to Amr for the plagiarism, I have basically copied and > pasted his message, making a few small edits, as I think it makes the case > well. Are there any requested edits or objections to this being sent? > > Ayden F?rdeline > > > > > > *The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group supports the comments raised by the > Registrar Stakeholder Group. We too object to modifying Recommendation > 12.Recommendation 12 received sufficient support within the EPDP team to be > included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was among > the small minority of groups not supporting it. We would object to any > attempt to re-open discussions on the substance of a recommendation in > discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, > regardless of who raised it, because this is not procedurally > correct.Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are meant to take > place at the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy > development process). These discussions have already taken place, the > report and recommendations were finalized, the recommendations were voted > on by the GNSO Council, and they have been sent to the ICANN Board for its > consideration.* > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 08:23, Amr Elsadr > wrote: > > Hi, > > I?m forwarding this thread from the GNSO Council mailing list, because I?m > concerned with the Business Constituency?s attempt at amending a > recommendation coming out of phase 1 of the EPDP on the Temporary > Specification for gTLD Registration Data. > > The discussion below concerns purpose 2 within recommendation 1 as well as > recommendation 12 in the phase 1 Final Report > (concerning > the ?registrant organization? field), which were not adopted by the ICANN > Board pending concerns they have raised. These were addressed during the > Board?s meeting with the GNSO Council at ICANN65, and the Council is now > drafting a more formal response in the form of correspondence (draft > attached to this email). > > My concern is mainly with the recommendation 12 discussion. This > recommendation received enough support within the EPDP Team to be included > in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was among the > groups not supporting it. They are now attempting to re-open discussions on > the substance of the recommendation in discussions taking place between the > GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, which is not procedurally correct. > Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are menat to take place > at the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy development > process). These discussions have already taken place, the report and > recommendations were finalized, voted on by the GNSO Council and sent to > the ICANN Board for its consideration. > > So far, the Contracted Parties have pushed back against the Business > Constituency?s attempt to re-litigate recommendation 12. I hope that our > own representatives on the GNSO Council join in, and do the same. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *"Darcy Southwell" > *Subject: **Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on > EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations* > *Date: *July 24, 2019 at 9:44:19 PM GMT+2 > *To: *"Drazek, Keith" > *Cc: *"gnso-secs at icann.org" , "council at gnso.icann.org" > > *Reply-To: *"Darcy Southwell" > > Thanks you, Keith. > > The Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) agrees that it's outside the > Council's remit to modify, or even suggest modification of, a consensus > recommendation from a PDP working group and therefore objects to modifying > Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option. The Council should seek > to formalize the rationale provided to the Board in Marrakech and resubmit > the consensus recommendation to the Board for approval. Therefore, RrSG > supports the Council's letter to the Board as written regarding > Recommendation 12. > > Regarding Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, the EPDP Team and Board have been > quite clear that further legal analysis is necessary to ensure Purpose 2 is > drafted consistent with applicable laws. In its Final Report, the EPDP > Team recommended Purpose 2 be further evaluated during phase 2 of the > EPDP. In its resolution, the Board clearly instructed ICANN Org to > engage the DPAs to accomplish the necessary legal analysis to perform the > work. That legal analysis must be completed before the EPDP Team can even > begin to consider how to revise Purpose 2. Further, it is not typical > for the Council to instruct a PDP as to when it works on such specific > tasks. It is up to the PDP Working Group, with its leadership and > coordinating with ICANN staff, to prioritize its work. So far, the EPDP > Team has prioritized the work related to the System for Standardized Access > to Non-Public Registration Data, consistent with its Charter, and with the > concerns of many of the GNSO Councilors. At this point, the RrSG sees no > reason for the Council to intervene to reprioritize the Purpose 2 work > ahead of the chartered work. > > Best, > Darcy > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:30 AM Drazek, Keith via council < > council at gnso.icann.org> wrote: > >> Hi Marie, >> >> >> >> Thanks for your initial feedback here, and for the discussion during >> yesterday?s Council call. >> >> >> >> On your second point below, related to the Board?s treatment of >> Recommendation 12, I believe it is outside the Council?s remit to suggest, >> or even allow, a modification to the Consensus Policy recommendation >> delivered to us by the EPDP Team, and subsequently delivered by Council to >> the Board. In my view, it is the role of Council to now hold the Board >> accountable for its decision to not accept Rec 12 in full, and to call for >> the Board to accept it following the clarification they requested. >> >> >> >> I welcome further discussion on these items following discussion with our >> respective SGs and Cs, but that?s my current view. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Keith >> >> >> >> *From:* Marie Pattullo >> *Sent:* Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:53 PM >> *To:* Drazek, Keith >> *Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org; council at gnso.icann.org >> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on >> EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations >> >> >> >> Hi Keith, >> >> >> >> Thanks for sharing the draft. I?m afraid I haven?t been able to discuss >> this much with our members yet (sorry) but on an initial reading, the BC >> does have some concerns. >> >> >> >> On your first point, on rec 1, while the first sentence is great, we have >> problems with the second. As you know from the comments we attached to >> Janis? letter, we really need to give the EPDP Team a clear instruction to >> reword this and replace the placeholder language; I understand that it?s >> not on the Team?s roadmap right now. We really think that at a minimum, >> Council needs to tell the Team to do that and get it back ASAP for Board >> action. We all agree that the EPDP should deal with this, so we really do >> need a purpose 2 (for 3rd party access) for the Board to adopt. >> >> >> >> As for your 2nd para, on rec 12, we don?t agree that it should just be >> resubmitted as is. As you know, the BC really does think that as far as the >> ORG field goes, Rec 12 should be amended to remove the deletion option. >> There could always be an option of to allow the contracted parties to >> update any inaccuracies in the ORG field, as appropriate, if they need that. >> >> >> >> Looking forward to the discussion! >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> Marie >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* council *On Behalf Of *Drazek, >> Keith via council >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2019 11:49 AM >> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org >> *Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org >> *Subject:* [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP >> Phase 1 Recommendations >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> In preparation for our Council meeting this week, please review the >> attached draft letter to the ICANN Board concerning next steps on the two >> EPDP Phase 1 recommendations not accepted in full by the Board. >> >> >> >> As you will recall, we had a good conversation with the ICANN Board >> during our working session lunch, and we committed to following up on the >> issue. The draft letter is self-explanatory, and our goal is to ensure a >> common understanding between Council and Board before we take our formal >> action to request Board reconsideration on Recommendation 12. We want to >> avoid an ongoing back-and-forth on the issue, so our hope is this letter >> will pave the way to a clear resolution. >> >> >> >> Please review before our Council meeting. >> >> >> >> Thanks to Rafik and Pam for leading this work while I was on PTO. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Keith >> _______________________________________________ >> council mailing list >> council at gnso.icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >> >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your >> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance >> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and >> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You >> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or >> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or >> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 25 17:45:10 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:45:10 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] quick response requested Fw: Fwd: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <4nlNKEp3en9oGuOzgIVtP1RiTgMgQb2jJU6UwHadznn6ueE0Tozxl2vncLItr_bvGaB1aZZ6UM2ryNAyzEak5r6LmZhYt873juufAQT80BI=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Thanks Amr, that is a good point. I have now made a small edit to note our support for the letter. -- Ayden The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group has reviewed the draft Council letter to the ICANN Board (circulated on 17 July 2019), and we support sending the letter in its present form. We also support the comments raised by the Registrar Stakeholder Group. We too object to modifying Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option. Recommendation 12 received sufficient support within the EPDP team to be included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was among the small minority of groups not supporting it. We would object to any attempt to re-open discussions on the substance of a recommendation in discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, regardless of who raised it, because this is not procedurally correct. Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are meant to take place at the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process). These discussions have already taken place, the report and recommendations were finalized, the recommendations were voted on by the GNSO Council, and they have been sent to the ICANN Board for its consideration. ??????? Original Message ??????? On Thursday, 25 July 2019 10:47, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi Ayden and all, > > Thanks for reacting to this so quickly. For my part, no objection to any plagiarism taking place. ? > > It might also be worthwhile to point out that the NCSG supports the current form of the draft Council letter/response to the ICANN Board. > > Thanks again. > > Amr > > Sent from Mobile > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 3:37 PM, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Please see below a comment that Amr has raised on the NCSG-Discuss list. I would like to propose that we send the below comment to the Council list on behalf of the NCSG. >> >> With apologies to Amr for the plagiarism, I have basically copied and pasted his message, making a few small edits, as I think it makes the case well. Are there any requested edits or objections to this being sent? >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group supports the comments raised by the Registrar Stakeholder Group. We too object to modifying Recommendation 12. >> >> Recommendation 12 received sufficient support within the EPDP team to be included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was among the small minority of groups not supporting it. We would object to any attempt to re-open discussions on the substance of a recommendation in discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, regardless of who raised it, because this is not procedurally correct. >> >> Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are meant to take place at the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process). These discussions have already taken place, the report and recommendations were finalized, the recommendations were voted on by the GNSO Council, and they have been sent to the ICANN Board for its consideration. >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Thursday, 25 July 2019 08:23, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I?m forwarding this thread from the GNSO Council mailing list, because I?m concerned with the Business Constituency?s attempt at amending a recommendation coming out of phase 1 of the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. >>> >>> The discussion below concerns purpose 2 within recommendation 1 as well as recommendation 12 in the phase 1 [Final Report](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf) (concerning the ?registrant organization? field), which were not adopted by the ICANN Board pending concerns they have raised. These were addressed during the Board?s meeting with the GNSO Council at ICANN65, and the Council is now drafting a more formal response in the form of correspondence (draft attached to this email). >>> >>> My concern is mainly with the recommendation 12 discussion. This recommendation received enough support within the EPDP Team to be included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was among the groups not supporting it. They are now attempting to re-open discussions on the substance of the recommendation in discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, which is not procedurally correct. Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are menat to take place at the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process). These discussions have already taken place, the report and recommendations were finalized, voted on by the GNSO Council and sent to the ICANN Board for its consideration. >>> >>> So far, the Contracted Parties have pushed back against the Business Constituency?s attempt to re-litigate recommendation 12. I hope that our own representatives on the GNSO Council join in, and do the same. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Amr >>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> From: "Darcy Southwell" >>>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations >>>> Date: July 24, 2019 at 9:44:19 PM GMT+2 >>>> To: "Drazek, Keith" >>>> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" , "council at gnso.icann.org" >>>> Reply-To: "Darcy Southwell" >>>> >>>> Thanks you, Keith. >>>> >>>> The Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) agrees that it's outside the Council's remit to modify, or even suggest modification of, a consensus recommendation from a PDP working group and therefore objects to modifying Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option. The Council should seek to formalize the rationale provided to the Board in Marrakech and resubmit the consensus recommendation to the Board for approval. Therefore, RrSG supports the Council's letter to the Board as written regarding Recommendation 12. >>>> >>>> Regarding Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, the EPDP Team and Board have been quite clear that further legal analysis is necessary to ensure Purpose 2 is drafted consistent with applicable laws. In its Final Report, the EPDP Team recommended Purpose 2 be further evaluated during phase 2 of the EPDP. In its resolution, the Board clearly instructed ICANN Org to engage the DPAs to accomplish the necessary legal analysis to perform the work. That legal analysis must be completed before the EPDP Team can even begin to consider how to revise Purpose 2. Further, it is not typical for the Council to instruct a PDP as to when it works on such specific tasks. It is up to the PDP Working Group, with its leadership and coordinating with ICANN staff, to prioritize its work. So far, the EPDP Team has prioritized the work related to the System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, consistent with its Charter, and with the concerns of many of the GNSO Councilors. At this point, the RrSG sees no reason for the Council to intervene to reprioritize the Purpose 2 work ahead of the chartered work. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Darcy >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:30 AM Drazek, Keith via council wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Marie, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your initial feedback here, and for the discussion during yesterday?s Council call. >>>>> >>>>> On your second point below, related to the Board?s treatment of Recommendation 12, I believe it is outside the Council?s remit to suggest, or even allow, a modification to the Consensus Policy recommendation delivered to us by the EPDP Team, and subsequently delivered by Council to the Board. In my view, it is the role of Council to now hold the Board accountable for its decision to not accept Rec 12 in full, and to call for the Board to accept it following the clarification they requested. >>>>> >>>>> I welcome further discussion on these items following discussion with our respective SGs and Cs, but that?s my current view. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Keith >>>>> >>>>> From: Marie Pattullo >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:53 PM >>>>> To: Drazek, Keith >>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; council at gnso.icann.org >>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations >>>>> >>>>> Hi Keith, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for sharing the draft. I?m afraid I haven?t been able to discuss this much with our members yet (sorry) but on an initial reading, the BC does have some concerns. >>>>> >>>>> On your first point, on rec 1, while the first sentence is great, we have problems with the second. As you know from the comments we attached to Janis? letter, we really need to give the EPDP Team a clear instruction to reword this and replace the placeholder language; I understand that it?s not on the Team?s roadmap right now. We really think that at a minimum, Council needs to tell the Team to do that and get it back ASAP for Board action. We all agree that the EPDP should deal with this, so we really do need a purpose 2 (for 3rd party access) for the Board to adopt. >>>>> >>>>> As for your 2nd para, on rec 12, we don?t agree that it should just be resubmitted as is. As you know, the BC really does think that as far as the ORG field goes, Rec 12 should be amended to remove the deletion option. There could always be an option of to allow the contracted parties to update any inaccuracies in the ORG field, as appropriate, if they need that. >>>>> >>>>> Looking forward to the discussion! >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Marie >>>>> >>>>> From: council On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith via council >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 11:49 AM >>>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org >>>>> Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> In preparation for our Council meeting this week, please review the attached draft letter to the ICANN Board concerning next steps on the two EPDP Phase 1 recommendations not accepted in full by the Board. >>>>> >>>>> As you will recall, we had a good conversation with the ICANN Board during our working session lunch, and we committed to following up on the issue. The draft letter is self-explanatory, and our goal is to ensure a common understanding between Council and Board before we take our formal action to request Board reconsideration on Recommendation 12. We want to avoid an ongoing back-and-forth on the issue, so our hope is this letter will pave the way to a clear resolution. >>>>> >>>>> Please review before our Council meeting. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks to Rafik and Pam for leading this work while I was on PTO. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Keith >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> council mailing list >>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Jul 25 18:38:23 2019 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:38:23 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] quick response requested Fw: Fwd: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <4nlNKEp3en9oGuOzgIVtP1RiTgMgQb2jJU6UwHadznn6ueE0Tozxl2vncLItr_bvGaB1aZZ6UM2ryNAyzEak5r6LmZhYt873juufAQT80BI=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: My support to this submission! 2019-07-25 16:45 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline : > Thanks Amr, that is a good point. I have now made a small edit to note our > support for the letter. > > -- Ayden > > The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group has reviewed the draft Council letter > to the ICANN Board (circulated on 17 July 2019), and we support sending the > letter in its present form. > > We also support the comments raised by the Registrar Stakeholder Group. We > too object to modifying Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option. > > Recommendation 12 received sufficient support within the EPDP team to be > included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was among > the small minority of groups not supporting it. We would object to any > attempt to re-open discussions on the substance of a recommendation in > discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, > regardless of who raised it, because this is not procedurally correct. > > Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are meant to take place at > the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy development > process). These discussions have already taken place, the report and > recommendations were finalized, the recommendations were voted on by the > GNSO Council, and they have been sent to the ICANN Board for its > consideration. > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 10:47, Amr Elsadr > wrote: > >> Hi Ayden and all, >> >> Thanks for reacting to this so quickly. For my part, no objection to any >> plagiarism taking place. ? >> >> It might also be worthwhile to point out that the NCSG supports the >> current form of the draft Council letter/response to the ICANN Board. >> >> Thanks again. >> >> Amr >> >> Sent from Mobile >> >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 3:37 PM, Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Please see below a comment that Amr has raised on the NCSG-Discuss list. >>> I would like to propose that we send the below comment to the Council >>> list on behalf of the NCSG. >>> >>> With apologies to Amr for the plagiarism, I have basically copied and >>> pasted his message, making a few small edits, as I think it makes the >>> case well. Are there any requested edits or objections to this being >>> sent? >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group supports the comments raised by the >>> Registrar Stakeholder Group. We too object to modifying Recommendation >>> 12. >>> >>> Recommendation 12 received sufficient support within the EPDP team to be >>> included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was >>> among the small minority of groups not supporting it. We would object to >>> any attempt to re-open discussions on the substance of a recommendation >>> in discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, >>> regardless of who raised it, because this is not procedurally correct. >>> >>> Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are meant to take place >>> at the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy >>> development process). These discussions have already taken place, the >>> report and recommendations were finalized, the recommendations were voted >>> on by the GNSO Council, and they have been sent to the ICANN Board for >>> its consideration. >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On Thursday, 25 July 2019 08:23, Amr Elsadr >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I?m forwarding this thread from the GNSO Council mailing list, because >>>> I?m concerned with the Business Constituency?s attempt at amending a >>>> recommendation coming out of phase 1 of the EPDP on the Temporary >>>> Specification for gTLD Registration Data. >>>> >>>> The discussion below concerns purpose 2 within recommendation 1 as well >>>> as recommendation 12 in the phase 1 [Final >>>> Report](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf) >>>> (concerning the ?registrant organization? field), which were not adopted >>>> by the ICANN Board pending concerns they have raised. These were >>>> addressed during the Board?s meeting with the GNSO Council at ICANN65, >>>> and the Council is now drafting a more formal response in the form of >>>> correspondence (draft attached to this email). >>>> >>>> My concern is mainly with the recommendation 12 discussion. This >>>> recommendation received enough support within the EPDP Team to be >>>> included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was >>>> among the groups not supporting it. They are now attempting to re-open >>>> discussions on the substance of the recommendation in discussions taking >>>> place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, which is not >>>> procedurally correct. Discussions on substantive policy recommendations >>>> are menat to take place at the Working Group level (the bottom of the >>>> bottom-up policy development process). These discussions have already >>>> taken place, the report and recommendations were finalized, voted on by >>>> the GNSO Council and sent to the ICANN Board for its consideration. >>>> >>>> So far, the Contracted Parties have pushed back against the Business >>>> Constituency?s attempt to re-litigate recommendation 12. I hope that our >>>> own representatives on the GNSO Council join in, and do the same. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>> From: "Darcy Southwell" >>>>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP >>>>> Phase 1 Recommendations >>>>> Date: July 24, 2019 at 9:44:19 PM GMT+2 >>>>> To: "Drazek, Keith" >>>>> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" , >>>>> "council at gnso.icann.org" >>>>> Reply-To: "Darcy Southwell" >>>>> >>>>> Thanks you, Keith. >>>>> >>>>> The Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) agrees that it's outside the >>>>> Council's remit to modify, or even suggest modification of, a consensus >>>>> recommendation from a PDP working group and therefore objects to >>>>> modifying Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option. The Council >>>>> should seek to formalize the rationale provided to the Board in >>>>> Marrakech and resubmit the consensus recommendation to the Board for >>>>> approval. Therefore, RrSG supports the Council's letter to the Board >>>>> as written regarding Recommendation 12. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, the EPDP Team and Board have >>>>> been quite clear that further legal analysis is necessary to ensure >>>>> Purpose 2 is drafted consistent with applicable laws. In its Final >>>>> Report, the EPDP Team recommended Purpose 2 be further evaluated during >>>>> phase 2 of the EPDP. In its resolution, the Board clearly instructed >>>>> ICANN Org to engage the DPAs to accomplish the necessary legal analysis >>>>> to perform the work. That legal analysis must be completed before the >>>>> EPDP Team can even begin to consider how to revise Purpose 2. Further, >>>>> it is not typical for the Council to instruct a PDP as to when it works >>>>> on such specific tasks. It is up to the PDP Working Group, with its >>>>> leadership and coordinating with ICANN staff, to prioritize its work. >>>>> So far, the EPDP Team has prioritized the work related to the System >>>>> for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, consistent >>>>> with its Charter, and with the concerns of many of the GNSO Councilors. >>>>> At this point, the RrSG sees no reason for the Council to intervene to >>>>> reprioritize the Purpose 2 work ahead of the chartered work. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Darcy >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:30 AM Drazek, Keith via council >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Marie, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your initial feedback here, and for the discussion during >>>>>> yesterday?s Council call. >>>>>> >>>>>> On your second point below, related to the Board?s treatment of >>>>>> Recommendation 12, I believe it is outside the Council?s remit to >>>>>> suggest, or even allow, a modification to the Consensus Policy >>>>>> recommendation delivered to us by the EPDP Team, and subsequently >>>>>> delivered by Council to the Board. In my view, it is the role of >>>>>> Council to now hold the Board accountable for its decision to not >>>>>> accept Rec 12 in full, and to call for the Board to accept it >>>>>> following the clarification they requested. >>>>>> >>>>>> I welcome further discussion on these items following discussion with >>>>>> our respective SGs and Cs, but that?s my current view. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Keith >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Marie Pattullo >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:53 PM >>>>>> To: Drazek, Keith >>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on >>>>>> EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Keith, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for sharing the draft. I?m afraid I haven?t been able to >>>>>> discuss this much with our members yet (sorry) but on an initial >>>>>> reading, the BC does have some concerns. >>>>>> >>>>>> On your first point, on rec 1, while the first sentence is great, we >>>>>> have problems with the second. As you know from the comments we >>>>>> attached to Janis? letter, we really need to give the EPDP Team a >>>>>> clear instruction to reword this and replace the placeholder language; >>>>>> I understand that it?s not on the Team?s roadmap right now. We really >>>>>> think that at a minimum, Council needs to tell the Team to do that and >>>>>> get it back ASAP for Board action. We all agree that the EPDP should >>>>>> deal with this, so we really do need a purpose 2 (for 3rd party >>>>>> access) for the Board to adopt. >>>>>> >>>>>> As for your 2nd para, on rec 12, we don?t agree that it should just be >>>>>> resubmitted as is. As you know, the BC really does think that as far >>>>>> as the ORG field goes, Rec 12 should be amended to remove the deletion >>>>>> option. There could always be an option of to allow the contracted >>>>>> parties to update any inaccuracies in the ORG field, as appropriate, >>>>>> if they need that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking forward to the discussion! >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Marie >>>>>> >>>>>> From: council On Behalf Of Drazek, >>>>>> Keith via council >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 11:49 AM >>>>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org >>>>>> Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP >>>>>> Phase 1 Recommendations >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> In preparation for our Council meeting this week, please review the >>>>>> attached draft letter to the ICANN Board concerning next steps on the >>>>>> two EPDP Phase 1 recommendations not accepted in full by the Board. >>>>>> >>>>>> As you will recall, we had a good conversation with the ICANN Board >>>>>> during our working session lunch, and we committed to following up on >>>>>> the issue. The draft letter is self-explanatory, and our goal is to >>>>>> ensure a common understanding between Council and Board before we take >>>>>> our formal action to request Board reconsideration on Recommendation >>>>>> 12. We want to avoid an ongoing back-and-forth on the issue, so our >>>>>> hope is this letter will pave the way to a clear resolution. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please review before our Council meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks to Rafik and Pam for leading this work while I was on PTO. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Keith >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> council mailing list >>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of >>>>>> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>>>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >>>>>> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >>>>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman >>>>>> link above to change your membership status or configuration, >>>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling >>>>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- ------------------------ **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 arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Jul 25 18:46:55 2019 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:46:55 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] Re: Proposed text: role of the community In-Reply-To: References: <1180E348-6C77-4B2A-BA7D-11498FE05466@icann.org> <342BAB5E-4BEC-477D-9D1A-F0C69E3F23D6@icann.org> <575AA3EE-3724-417C-8492-12C7B8DE5178@tucows.com> Message-ID: I also think Elliot makes a good case for the GNSO and would agree with him on his proposal. Maybe we may need to hear what Julf thinks and then convey our thoughts with him if the PC is in agreement? 2019-07-25 14:50 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline : > Excellent proposal from Elliot Noss; I hope that our representative on this > working group may extend support for his proposal. Thanks! > > Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 09:16, Elliot Noss wrote: > >> I would like to suggest a reworking and renaming of the constitution of >> the Advisory Board. >> >> First the name. An ?advisory board? suggests advice. This group is a >> decision-making board. It should be named appropriately. At ICANN, >> ?Advisory Committee? = recommend to the board. This is not the nature of >> the task here. >> >> I am not religious about the specific name, but the name should clearly >> connote its responsibilities. I will suggest ?Grants Committee? and make >> lots of room for feedback. >> >> Second, 2 persons per SO/AC for Advisory Board would mean to me: >> >> - 2x GNSO >> - 2x ccNSO >> - 2x GAC >> - 2x ALAC >> - 2x SSAC >> - 2x RSSAC >> >> This seems egalitarian at the highest level but inappropriate to the task. >> I would like to suggest two alterations. First, there is no need for SSAC >> or RSSAC to be involved here. I respect both groups and think their work >> is important in relation to the core mission (some of my best friends >> are??). They are also appointed and, most importantly, are specific >> subject matter experts by design and that subject matter is not related to >> the task. Of course some projects will have a technical element but there >> are technical skills throughout the community sufficient to cover this AND >> many members of those two committees are also members of other parts of >> the community and will be able to scratch their philanthropic itch. >> >> Next, I strongly feel that the GNSO should have 4-6 seats. The two most >> important reasons are that it is a GNSO program that has generated the >> excess funds and the GNSO has essentially grown into two separate groups >> that are more about balancing each other than they are one cohesive group >> as the rest of the groups are. Of course there are different positions in >> each group, but the GNSO uniquely has two VERY different personalities in >> the CPH and NCPH. >> >> I suggest the following: >> >> - 6x GNSO >> - 2x ccNSO >> - 2x GAC >> - 2x ALAC >> >> This is a good group size as well. 10-12 is the right dynamic for a group >> like this. >> >> I would close here by noting a strong precedent for fitting the >> constitution of a community group to its context. During the original >> ICANN restructuring, we (Tucows) created the position that the ALAC should >> have a disproportionate representation on the nomcom. The original >> document is here (it is a fascinating historical read for ICANN history >> fans in any event and at the time was sometimes mistakenly linked to as >> the actual document produced by then-ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn): >> >> http://www.byte.org/heathrow/heathrow-declaration-v0r0d5-032502.html >> >> The context was that the nomcom was replacing the public vote and that >> ALAC was intended to best represent users interests. This was hotly >> debated at the time but we prevailed and this has remained an important >> and influential part of the ICANN structure. >> >> The same concept of context applies here. >> >> Thanks. >> >> EN >> >>> On Jul 24, 2019, at 10:50 AM, Emily Barabas >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Elliot, >>> >>> Here you go: >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11dusiYnVTZhb_OvwZTvgKf_-5lF9NuzTAq6uV0fwYis/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Emily >>> >>> From: Elliot Noss >>> Date: Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 16:45 >>> To: Emily Barabas >>> Cc: "ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" >>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Proposed text: role of the >>> community >>> >>> Could we please put this in a google doc for easier commenting? Or is it >>> ok if I do (I would need all the email addresses in order to share)? If I >>> have missed some reason we can?t do that, apologies in advance. Thanks. >>> >>> EN >>> >>>> On Jul 23, 2019, at 12:45 PM, Emily Barabas >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear CCWG members, >>>> >>>> A small group of volunteers comprised of Erika Mann and Alan Greenberg >>>> volunteered to draft a proposal for the CCWG regarding the role of the >>>> ICANN community to include in the Final Report. Please find attached >>>> their proposal for your review and feedback. >>>> >>>> This input, along with all other input received over the last few weeks, >>>> will be incorporated into a revised draft Final Report that will be used >>>> as a basis for discussion on our 31 July call. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Emily >>>> >>>> Emily Barabas | Policy Manager >>>> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >>>> Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing listCcwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your >>>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >>>> ([https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy >>>> [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=jk7n-M4s2YmuuENS1pzszm3xggx3GT11xtLzPPXzQ7U&s=uw-Jm3Omao4saa47gUnB3Ta9s3jp_fpoAioaV_ptu88&e=)) >>>> and the website Terms of Service ([https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos >>>> [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=jk7n-M4s2YmuuENS1pzszm3xggx3GT11xtLzPPXzQ7U&s=CwJSnW1MBVgn6NIK-hamL97R6LprjDb4F_UsseGJD80&e=)). >>>> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or >>>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or >>>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- ------------------------ **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 tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Thu Jul 25 18:57:10 2019 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:57:10 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] quick response requested Fw: Fwd: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <4nlNKEp3en9oGuOzgIVtP1RiTgMgQb2jJU6UwHadznn6ueE0Tozxl2vncLItr_bvGaB1aZZ6UM2ryNAyzEak5r6LmZhYt873juufAQT80BI=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Thanks for drafting this, Ayden and Amr. My support, too. Cheers, Tanya On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 17:38, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > My support to this submission! > > 2019-07-25 16:45 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline : > > Thanks Amr, that is a good point. I have now made a small edit to note > our > > support for the letter. > > > > -- Ayden > > > > The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group has reviewed the draft Council > letter > > to the ICANN Board (circulated on 17 July 2019), and we support sending > the > > letter in its present form. > > > > We also support the comments raised by the Registrar Stakeholder Group. > We > > too object to modifying Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option. > > > > Recommendation 12 received sufficient support within the EPDP team to be > > included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was > among > > the small minority of groups not supporting it. We would object to any > > attempt to re-open discussions on the substance of a recommendation in > > discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, > > regardless of who raised it, because this is not procedurally correct. > > > > Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are meant to take > place at > > the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy development > > process). These discussions have already taken place, the report and > > recommendations were finalized, the recommendations were voted on by the > > GNSO Council, and they have been sent to the ICANN Board for its > > consideration. > > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > > On Thursday, 25 July 2019 10:47, Amr Elsadr > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Ayden and all, > >> > >> Thanks for reacting to this so quickly. For my part, no objection to any > >> plagiarism taking place. ? > >> > >> It might also be worthwhile to point out that the NCSG supports the > >> current form of the draft Council letter/response to the ICANN Board. > >> > >> Thanks again. > >> > >> Amr > >> > >> Sent from Mobile > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 3:37 PM, Ayden F?rdeline > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Please see below a comment that Amr has raised on the NCSG-Discuss > list. > >>> I would like to propose that we send the below comment to the Council > >>> list on behalf of the NCSG. > >>> > >>> With apologies to Amr for the plagiarism, I have basically copied and > >>> pasted his message, making a few small edits, as I think it makes the > >>> case well. Are there any requested edits or objections to this being > >>> sent? > >>> > >>> Ayden F?rdeline > >>> > >>> The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group supports the comments raised by > the > >>> Registrar Stakeholder Group. We too object to modifying Recommendation > >>> 12. > >>> > >>> Recommendation 12 received sufficient support within the EPDP team to > be > >>> included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was > >>> among the small minority of groups not supporting it. We would object > to > >>> any attempt to re-open discussions on the substance of a recommendation > >>> in discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN > Board, > >>> regardless of who raised it, because this is not procedurally correct. > >>> > >>> Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are meant to take > place > >>> at the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy > >>> development process). These discussions have already taken place, the > >>> report and recommendations were finalized, the recommendations were > voted > >>> on by the GNSO Council, and they have been sent to the ICANN Board for > >>> its consideration. > >>> > >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? > >>> On Thursday, 25 July 2019 08:23, Amr Elsadr > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I?m forwarding this thread from the GNSO Council mailing list, because > >>>> I?m concerned with the Business Constituency?s attempt at amending a > >>>> recommendation coming out of phase 1 of the EPDP on the Temporary > >>>> Specification for gTLD Registration Data. > >>>> > >>>> The discussion below concerns purpose 2 within recommendation 1 as > well > >>>> as recommendation 12 in the phase 1 [Final > >>>> Report]( > https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf > ) > >>>> (concerning the ?registrant organization? field), which were not > adopted > >>>> by the ICANN Board pending concerns they have raised. These were > >>>> addressed during the Board?s meeting with the GNSO Council at ICANN65, > >>>> and the Council is now drafting a more formal response in the form of > >>>> correspondence (draft attached to this email). > >>>> > >>>> My concern is mainly with the recommendation 12 discussion. This > >>>> recommendation received enough support within the EPDP Team to be > >>>> included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was > >>>> among the groups not supporting it. They are now attempting to re-open > >>>> discussions on the substance of the recommendation in discussions > taking > >>>> place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, which is not > >>>> procedurally correct. Discussions on substantive policy > recommendations > >>>> are menat to take place at the Working Group level (the bottom of the > >>>> bottom-up policy development process). These discussions have already > >>>> taken place, the report and recommendations were finalized, voted on > by > >>>> the GNSO Council and sent to the ICANN Board for its consideration. > >>>> > >>>> So far, the Contracted Parties have pushed back against the Business > >>>> Constituency?s attempt to re-litigate recommendation 12. I hope that > our > >>>> own representatives on the GNSO Council join in, and do the same. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. > >>>> > >>>> Amr > >>>> > >>>>> Begin forwarded message: > >>>>> > >>>>> From: "Darcy Southwell" > >>>>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on > EPDP > >>>>> Phase 1 Recommendations > >>>>> Date: July 24, 2019 at 9:44:19 PM GMT+2 > >>>>> To: "Drazek, Keith" > >>>>> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" , > >>>>> "council at gnso.icann.org" > >>>>> Reply-To: "Darcy Southwell" > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks you, Keith. > >>>>> > >>>>> The Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) agrees that it's outside the > >>>>> Council's remit to modify, or even suggest modification of, a > consensus > >>>>> recommendation from a PDP working group and therefore objects to > >>>>> modifying Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option. The > Council > >>>>> should seek to formalize the rationale provided to the Board in > >>>>> Marrakech and resubmit the consensus recommendation to the Board for > >>>>> approval. Therefore, RrSG supports the Council's letter to the Board > >>>>> as written regarding Recommendation 12. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regarding Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, the EPDP Team and Board have > >>>>> been quite clear that further legal analysis is necessary to ensure > >>>>> Purpose 2 is drafted consistent with applicable laws. In its Final > >>>>> Report, the EPDP Team recommended Purpose 2 be further evaluated > during > >>>>> phase 2 of the EPDP. In its resolution, the Board clearly instructed > >>>>> ICANN Org to engage the DPAs to accomplish the necessary legal > analysis > >>>>> to perform the work. That legal analysis must be completed before > the > >>>>> EPDP Team can even begin to consider how to revise Purpose 2. > Further, > >>>>> it is not typical for the Council to instruct a PDP as to when it > works > >>>>> on such specific tasks. It is up to the PDP Working Group, with its > >>>>> leadership and coordinating with ICANN staff, to prioritize its work. > >>>>> So far, the EPDP Team has prioritized the work related to the System > >>>>> for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, consistent > >>>>> with its Charter, and with the concerns of many of the GNSO > Councilors. > >>>>> At this point, the RrSG sees no reason for the Council to intervene > to > >>>>> reprioritize the Purpose 2 work ahead of the chartered work. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> Darcy > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:30 AM Drazek, Keith via council > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Marie, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for your initial feedback here, and for the discussion during > >>>>>> yesterday?s Council call. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On your second point below, related to the Board?s treatment of > >>>>>> Recommendation 12, I believe it is outside the Council?s remit to > >>>>>> suggest, or even allow, a modification to the Consensus Policy > >>>>>> recommendation delivered to us by the EPDP Team, and subsequently > >>>>>> delivered by Council to the Board. In my view, it is the role of > >>>>>> Council to now hold the Board accountable for its decision to not > >>>>>> accept Rec 12 in full, and to call for the Board to accept it > >>>>>> following the clarification they requested. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I welcome further discussion on these items following discussion > with > >>>>>> our respective SGs and Cs, but that?s my current view. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Keith > >>>>>> > >>>>>> From: Marie Pattullo > >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:53 PM > >>>>>> To: Drazek, Keith > >>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; council at gnso.icann.org > >>>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on > >>>>>> EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Keith, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for sharing the draft. I?m afraid I haven?t been able to > >>>>>> discuss this much with our members yet (sorry) but on an initial > >>>>>> reading, the BC does have some concerns. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On your first point, on rec 1, while the first sentence is great, we > >>>>>> have problems with the second. As you know from the comments we > >>>>>> attached to Janis? letter, we really need to give the EPDP Team a > >>>>>> clear instruction to reword this and replace the placeholder > language; > >>>>>> I understand that it?s not on the Team?s roadmap right now. We > really > >>>>>> think that at a minimum, Council needs to tell the Team to do that > and > >>>>>> get it back ASAP for Board action. We all agree that the EPDP should > >>>>>> deal with this, so we really do need a purpose 2 (for 3rd party > >>>>>> access) for the Board to adopt. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As for your 2nd para, on rec 12, we don?t agree that it should just > be > >>>>>> resubmitted as is. As you know, the BC really does think that as far > >>>>>> as the ORG field goes, Rec 12 should be amended to remove the > deletion > >>>>>> option. There could always be an option of to allow the contracted > >>>>>> parties to update any inaccuracies in the ORG field, as appropriate, > >>>>>> if they need that. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Looking forward to the discussion! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Marie > >>>>>> > >>>>>> From: council On Behalf Of Drazek, > >>>>>> Keith via council > >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 11:49 AM > >>>>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org > >>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org > >>>>>> Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP > >>>>>> Phase 1 Recommendations > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In preparation for our Council meeting this week, please review the > >>>>>> attached draft letter to the ICANN Board concerning next steps on > the > >>>>>> two EPDP Phase 1 recommendations not accepted in full by the Board. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As you will recall, we had a good conversation with the ICANN Board > >>>>>> during our working session lunch, and we committed to following up > on > >>>>>> the issue. The draft letter is self-explanatory, and our goal is to > >>>>>> ensure a common understanding between Council and Board before we > take > >>>>>> our formal action to request Board reconsideration on Recommendation > >>>>>> 12. We want to avoid an ongoing back-and-forth on the issue, so our > >>>>>> hope is this letter will pave the way to a clear resolution. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please review before our Council meeting. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks to Rafik and Pam for leading this work while I was on PTO. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Keith > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> council mailing list > >>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org > >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of > >>>>>> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list > >>>>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy > >>>>>> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of > >>>>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the > Mailman > >>>>>> link above to change your membership status or configuration, > >>>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling > >>>>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > > > -- > ------------------------ > **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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Jul 25 19:54:59 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 16:54:59 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] quick response requested Fw: Fwd: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <4nlNKEp3en9oGuOzgIVtP1RiTgMgQb2jJU6UwHadznn6ueE0Tozxl2vncLItr_bvGaB1aZZ6UM2ryNAyzEak5r6LmZhYt873juufAQT80BI=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I am going to submit this response now, as we have received affirmations of support from a majority of Councilors (and Rafik was involved in drafting the original letter). Thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Thursday, 25 July 2019 12:57, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > Thanks for drafting this, Ayden and Amr. > My support, too. > Cheers, > Tanya > > On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 17:38, Ars?ne Tungali wrote: > >> My support to this submission! >> >> 2019-07-25 16:45 UTC+02:00, Ayden F?rdeline : >>> Thanks Amr, that is a good point. I have now made a small edit to note our >>> support for the letter. >>> >>> -- Ayden >>> >>> The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group has reviewed the draft Council letter >>> to the ICANN Board (circulated on 17 July 2019), and we support sending the >>> letter in its present form. >>> >>> We also support the comments raised by the Registrar Stakeholder Group. We >>> too object to modifying Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option. >>> >>> Recommendation 12 received sufficient support within the EPDP team to be >>> included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was among >>> the small minority of groups not supporting it. We would object to any >>> attempt to re-open discussions on the substance of a recommendation in >>> discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, >>> regardless of who raised it, because this is not procedurally correct. >>> >>> Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are meant to take place at >>> the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy development >>> process). These discussions have already taken place, the report and >>> recommendations were finalized, the recommendations were voted on by the >>> GNSO Council, and they have been sent to the ICANN Board for its >>> consideration. >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On Thursday, 25 July 2019 10:47, Amr Elsadr >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ayden and all, >>>> >>>> Thanks for reacting to this so quickly. For my part, no objection to any >>>> plagiarism taking place. ? >>>> >>>> It might also be worthwhile to point out that the NCSG supports the >>>> current form of the draft Council letter/response to the ICANN Board. >>>> >>>> Thanks again. >>>> >>>> Amr >>>> >>>> Sent from Mobile >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 3:37 PM, Ayden F?rdeline >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Please see below a comment that Amr has raised on the NCSG-Discuss list. >>>>> I would like to propose that we send the below comment to the Council >>>>> list on behalf of the NCSG. >>>>> >>>>> With apologies to Amr for the plagiarism, I have basically copied and >>>>> pasted his message, making a few small edits, as I think it makes the >>>>> case well. Are there any requested edits or objections to this being >>>>> sent? >>>>> >>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>> The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group supports the comments raised by the >>>>> Registrar Stakeholder Group. We too object to modifying Recommendation >>>>> 12. >>>>> >>>>> Recommendation 12 received sufficient support within the EPDP team to be >>>>> included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was >>>>> among the small minority of groups not supporting it. We would object to >>>>> any attempt to re-open discussions on the substance of a recommendation >>>>> in discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, >>>>> regardless of who raised it, because this is not procedurally correct. >>>>> >>>>> Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are meant to take place >>>>> at the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy >>>>> development process). These discussions have already taken place, the >>>>> report and recommendations were finalized, the recommendations were voted >>>>> on by the GNSO Council, and they have been sent to the ICANN Board for >>>>> its consideration. >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On Thursday, 25 July 2019 08:23, Amr Elsadr >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I?m forwarding this thread from the GNSO Council mailing list, because >>>>>> I?m concerned with the Business Constituency?s attempt at amending a >>>>>> recommendation coming out of phase 1 of the EPDP on the Temporary >>>>>> Specification for gTLD Registration Data. >>>>>> >>>>>> The discussion below concerns purpose 2 within recommendation 1 as well >>>>>> as recommendation 12 in the phase 1 [Final >>>>>> Report](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf) >>>>>> (concerning the ?registrant organization? field), which were not adopted >>>>>> by the ICANN Board pending concerns they have raised. These were >>>>>> addressed during the Board?s meeting with the GNSO Council at ICANN65, >>>>>> and the Council is now drafting a more formal response in the form of >>>>>> correspondence (draft attached to this email). >>>>>> >>>>>> My concern is mainly with the recommendation 12 discussion. This >>>>>> recommendation received enough support within the EPDP Team to be >>>>>> included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was >>>>>> among the groups not supporting it. They are now attempting to re-open >>>>>> discussions on the substance of the recommendation in discussions taking >>>>>> place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, which is not >>>>>> procedurally correct. Discussions on substantive policy recommendations >>>>>> are menat to take place at the Working Group level (the bottom of the >>>>>> bottom-up policy development process). These discussions have already >>>>>> taken place, the report and recommendations were finalized, voted on by >>>>>> the GNSO Council and sent to the ICANN Board for its consideration. >>>>>> >>>>>> So far, the Contracted Parties have pushed back against the Business >>>>>> Constituency?s attempt to re-litigate recommendation 12. I hope that our >>>>>> own representatives on the GNSO Council join in, and do the same. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Amr >>>>>> >>>>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: "Darcy Southwell" >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP >>>>>>> Phase 1 Recommendations >>>>>>> Date: July 24, 2019 at 9:44:19 PM GMT+2 >>>>>>> To: "Drazek, Keith" >>>>>>> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" , >>>>>>> "council at gnso.icann.org" >>>>>>> Reply-To: "Darcy Southwell" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks you, Keith. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) agrees that it's outside the >>>>>>> Council's remit to modify, or even suggest modification of, a consensus >>>>>>> recommendation from a PDP working group and therefore objects to >>>>>>> modifying Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option. The Council >>>>>>> should seek to formalize the rationale provided to the Board in >>>>>>> Marrakech and resubmit the consensus recommendation to the Board for >>>>>>> approval. Therefore, RrSG supports the Council's letter to the Board >>>>>>> as written regarding Recommendation 12. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, the EPDP Team and Board have >>>>>>> been quite clear that further legal analysis is necessary to ensure >>>>>>> Purpose 2 is drafted consistent with applicable laws. In its Final >>>>>>> Report, the EPDP Team recommended Purpose 2 be further evaluated during >>>>>>> phase 2 of the EPDP. In its resolution, the Board clearly instructed >>>>>>> ICANN Org to engage the DPAs to accomplish the necessary legal analysis >>>>>>> to perform the work. That legal analysis must be completed before the >>>>>>> EPDP Team can even begin to consider how to revise Purpose 2. Further, >>>>>>> it is not typical for the Council to instruct a PDP as to when it works >>>>>>> on such specific tasks. It is up to the PDP Working Group, with its >>>>>>> leadership and coordinating with ICANN staff, to prioritize its work. >>>>>>> So far, the EPDP Team has prioritized the work related to the System >>>>>>> for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, consistent >>>>>>> with its Charter, and with the concerns of many of the GNSO Councilors. >>>>>>> At this point, the RrSG sees no reason for the Council to intervene to >>>>>>> reprioritize the Purpose 2 work ahead of the chartered work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Darcy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:30 AM Drazek, Keith via council >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Marie, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for your initial feedback here, and for the discussion during >>>>>>>> yesterday?s Council call. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On your second point below, related to the Board?s treatment of >>>>>>>> Recommendation 12, I believe it is outside the Council?s remit to >>>>>>>> suggest, or even allow, a modification to the Consensus Policy >>>>>>>> recommendation delivered to us by the EPDP Team, and subsequently >>>>>>>> delivered by Council to the Board. In my view, it is the role of >>>>>>>> Council to now hold the Board accountable for its decision to not >>>>>>>> accept Rec 12 in full, and to call for the Board to accept it >>>>>>>> following the clarification they requested. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I welcome further discussion on these items following discussion with >>>>>>>> our respective SGs and Cs, but that?s my current view. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Keith >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Marie Pattullo >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:53 PM >>>>>>>> To: Drazek, Keith >>>>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on >>>>>>>> EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Keith, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing the draft. I?m afraid I haven?t been able to >>>>>>>> discuss this much with our members yet (sorry) but on an initial >>>>>>>> reading, the BC does have some concerns. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On your first point, on rec 1, while the first sentence is great, we >>>>>>>> have problems with the second. As you know from the comments we >>>>>>>> attached to Janis? letter, we really need to give the EPDP Team a >>>>>>>> clear instruction to reword this and replace the placeholder language; >>>>>>>> I understand that it?s not on the Team?s roadmap right now. We really >>>>>>>> think that at a minimum, Council needs to tell the Team to do that and >>>>>>>> get it back ASAP for Board action. We all agree that the EPDP should >>>>>>>> deal with this, so we really do need a purpose 2 (for 3rd party >>>>>>>> access) for the Board to adopt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As for your 2nd para, on rec 12, we don?t agree that it should just be >>>>>>>> resubmitted as is. As you know, the BC really does think that as far >>>>>>>> as the ORG field goes, Rec 12 should be amended to remove the deletion >>>>>>>> option. There could always be an option of to allow the contracted >>>>>>>> parties to update any inaccuracies in the ORG field, as appropriate, >>>>>>>> if they need that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looking forward to the discussion! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Marie >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: council On Behalf Of Drazek, >>>>>>>> Keith via council >>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 11:49 AM >>>>>>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org >>>>>>>> Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP >>>>>>>> Phase 1 Recommendations >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In preparation for our Council meeting this week, please review the >>>>>>>> attached draft letter to the ICANN Board concerning next steps on the >>>>>>>> two EPDP Phase 1 recommendations not accepted in full by the Board. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As you will recall, we had a good conversation with the ICANN Board >>>>>>>> during our working session lunch, and we committed to following up on >>>>>>>> the issue. The draft letter is self-explanatory, and our goal is to >>>>>>>> ensure a common understanding between Council and Board before we take >>>>>>>> our formal action to request Board reconsideration on Recommendation >>>>>>>> 12. We want to avoid an ongoing back-and-forth on the issue, so our >>>>>>>> hope is this letter will pave the way to a clear resolution. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please review before our Council meeting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks to Rafik and Pam for leading this work while I was on PTO. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Keith >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> council mailing list >>>>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of >>>>>>>> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>>>>>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >>>>>>>> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >>>>>>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman >>>>>>>> link above to change your membership status or configuration, >>>>>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling >>>>>>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >> >> -- >> ------------------------ >> **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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Fri Jul 26 07:25:43 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 00:25:43 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews Message-ID: Hi This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. should be shared with the list as well. Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Jul 26 07:34:08 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 13:34:08 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Farzaneh, thanks for work, @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more extension Best, Rafik Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > Hi > > This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit > > Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. should be > shared with the list as well. > > > > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Jul 26 17:42:58 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:42:58 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Judith Hellerstein's comments on the Auction Proceeds Draft In-Reply-To: References: <26BE8FE4-1D02-4986-B94D-2BB04FC876EE@jhellerstein.com> Message-ID: Excellent analysis from the CSG. I hope the NCSG will be advocating for Mechanism C too, given that was our preferred mechanism in our last comment. Mailing list discussions seem to be endorsing Mechanism A, which we had concerns about. - Ayden > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Marilyn Cade > Date: On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:30 > Subject: Fwd: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Judith Hellerstein's comments on the Auction Proceeds Draft > To: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org > Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne > > my apologies for being off line for a couple of days as other priorities did take over my life. > > As I represent the CSG, which is 3 constituencies, I will restate that we have strong concerns about Mechanism A as we do not understand how to ensure complete independence, which is of critical importance. I can't say that have been able to fully consult recently with the other participants from the CSG, but the general direction has not changed. > > We supported Mechanism C, and our preference has not changed. Accepting that there needs to be two options, Mechanism A and Mechanism C presented to the community -- still we strongly require that there be more fact based, and not just opinions from each of us as participants, presented. Thus, while any of us may have experience or preference, the CSG prefers to see fact based and even external reports. We do not support relying on member or participant, or internal ICANN staff analysis on certain areas, as for Mechanism A, given the landfall of chargeback costs, there could be unrecognized preferences. > > Thus we want to see independent analysis of the key questions. and while we welcome ICANN legal and financial analysis, it is not sufficient. Further ICANN staff are not experts in grant making, grant management and while they can "count heads" and analyze certain functions such as completing the tax returns, the 990, etc., maintaining separate bank accounts, as they have done with the Auction Funds proceeds as an interim management function, this does not morph into a sophisticated grant management entity. > > Mechanism A: This in not the CSG preferred option. > We have described our concern that there are issues about an in-house entity, with many issues related to how to be independent., lack of skills, hiring and firing of staff, increased liability to ICANN Org, overall, etc. etc > > It is not accurate to state that because ICANN can set up separate bank accounts and maintain independence of such, that they are experienced in operating a truly independent grant making program. AND in operating such. > > An internal unit will have higher costs than are being acknowledged. On'e can't work part time on policy development or at GDD or GEE and then, presto, magic, morph over to spend 4 hours per day on a grant making program, at a lower costs, or at the same, higher cost of ICANN but without any clear distinction for tax reporting purposes. > > ICANN pays much higher salareies/benefits than is usual in a grant making entity and has also exit costs for staff who are part of ICANN and then are "made surplus", etc. And, not it isn't sufficient to cite California laws as if an employee is based in Europe, they gain additional benefits, like announcing they want to take a sabbatical to attend an educational program, and they simply are then still able to return to ICANN with a guarantee of job, as we have expeienced in the past. ICANN pays at far above usual rates for a not for profit organization, instead benchmarking against high tech companies -- this has been noted and objected to in the Budget Comments from the community, but is relevant here only as any "internal" process brings on exceptionally higher costs than is usual in a grant making/grant oversight/management process established in an external organization. > > I heard statements like: these staff can apply for ICANN jobs in the future, rather than being terminated. Let's be clear: grant making is a different skill set and we need to recognize that. > > In addition, the internal mechanism assumes that ICANN bills the "fund" at their usual really [well, I hesitate to use the word bloated, but certainly "high cost"] for any services they provide, and any services they provide are on top of what is supposed to be a full time job [according to the ICANN budget], which means retention of contractors, external resources, or additions of staff]. All at ICANN usual "costs". > > Again, higher than is usual for grant making organizations. > > The independence of any "internal body" is highly questionable. > > Stating that the ICANN Board has fiduciary responsibility, etc. is factual, but does not mean day to day oversight. And in fact, should be recognized as prohibited by the need for an independent disbursement mechanism. > > In fact, in the view of some, including the CSG and others in the public comment process, creating a mechanism with accountability, and independence from influence from Board and staff and even community, with focus on the established criteria led to members of the community to support Mechanism C over the recommendation of Mechanism A and B. > > Mechanism C remains our preferred option to present but we understand that it is possibly useful to present Mechanism A and C -- both -- as there is not agreement to a single mechanism at this point, among those who are active representatives and participants in this work effort. And it is important for us all to understand that this has been a prolonged and intensive effort. And we are close to the end -- presenting, we hope -- two options, with more detailed analysis and remaining questions, and then posting for our final public comment process. > > Frankly, as for me, there are continued questions about the influence of the staff and even the Board from time to time on this process and whether it is appropriate to have "preferences" expressed, which occasionally I have feared that I tetected -- e.g. the Board prefers ... etc. or senior staff think... etc. > > I believe strongly, and advocated from when I became the CSG rep that it is essential to have a very stringent approach to fact based decision making, essential for a public service, not for profit corporation, incorporated under California law. And an independent process that does not bring into ICANN a short term process, that is clearly not part of the core mission of ICXANN -- e.g grants management of a short term/but multi million$ fund, but one that is not part of why we created ICANN. Creating a separate Foundation, with a separate independent Board, with perhaps two ex officio non voting members that are from the ICANN Board, and a community advisory group > > I understand that some prefer to have the function inside ICANN. That is not supported by others in the members and participants, so a compromise is submitting Mechanism A and C, but then actually doing more due diligence as needed about each. > > Statements that a separate foundation is more expensive or longer than an internal mechanism are speculative right now, but can be addressed by factual analysis. However, I do not agree that ICANN staff have expertise in analyzing the attributes of staff or process to manage grant solutions/review/management. ? Yes, they can set up separate bank accounts, and do other forms of administrative reporting, and of course, would have to be paid for at the usual ICANN [which is quite generous} fee basis. BUT, the background, experience, and skills to do grant solicitation,award/evalation is different. > > Recently an experienced colleague in grants management told me he managed a $80M grant which was dispersed in a 9 month announcement, award selection, then performance of 1 year period, with a second year management/evulation process, and described the overhead and reports. Another colleague told me about a $190M grant process -- again, dispursement/oversight/evaluation within a 3 year period. These are not trivial tasks, and the overhead is what some might think is high, but is based on what kind of evaluation is required, and whether it is a grant to do something, or a grant to effect a major change. One might be light assessment- a) hold a meeting with 50 people/address training in DNSSEC, 40 of those invited attended/ 35 received the credentials, etc. etc. versus: establish a multi year, multi country training program in capacity building in DNS issues and successfully bring in 200 attendees per year, with XX changes in skills at national level. Evaluate changes in expertise. > > Mechanism B had some attraction but there was not enough work on the criteria bout how to select the "partner" with experience/expertise in operating a grant making program. > > Thus, I hope that the CCWG-AP sending forward Mechanism A and Mechanism C -- with the clear understanding that the CSG has many concerns with Mechanism A, and prefers Mechanism C. And we will encourage informed comments during the public comment process. > > It is important to be clear about what the public comment process is about. > I spent over an hour clarifying to Fellows and NextGen, who were encouraged by ICANN staff to express their "preference" on how to influence what is funded. This is a misunderstanding and probably on many parts. That is NOT the purpose of the CCWG-AP, and probably a misunderstanding by staff when they encouraged attending the CCWG-AP session but it is important to understand that this public comment includes a clear understandable statement that this is not a slush fund; it is not up to the ICANN Board to direct; it must be independently managed and not put ICANN's integrity, or tax status, or anti trust status at risk by any even suspicion. > > Boards change, so do Senior staff/executives. The community needs to have a good understanding of our responsibilities, but also our limitation, given the focused purpose of the Auction Proceeds. > > Marilyn Cade > CSG member in the CCWG-AP > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: Ccwg-auctionproceeds on behalf of Judith Hellerstein > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 11:25 PM > To: Elliot Noss > Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Judith Hellerstein's comments on the Auction Proceeds Draft > > Hi Elliot > Mechanism A is an internal icann department hired to do the evaluation and choosing of grants > As such icann staff will be reviewing all grant applications and choosing the winners. This is why I said, to me it is clear, that this mechanism has the least independence and in my mind does not meet the requirements set up by the board. > > If icann outsourced the reviewing and selection of the grantees it us not clear to me what the difference of the mechanisms us to me. > > With mechanism b, this choice of reviewing and selecting the grant winners will be done by the donor advisory fund. This is and independent group where icann has no ability to influence > > Mechanism C is an icann foundation. Again an independent group reviews and select the grantees > > Hope this answers your questions > > Best > Judith > > Sent from my iPhone > Judith at jhellerstein.com > Skype ID:Judithhellerstein > > On Jul 25, 2019, at 7:51 AM, Elliot Noss wrote: > >> Hi Judith, >> >> You say " It seems clear to me that Mechanism A would not meet the independent requirements set up by the ICANN Board?. This is not clear to me. Please explain. Thanks. >> >> EN >> >>> On Jul 24, 2019, at 11:02 PM, Judith Hellerstein wrote: >>> >>> As per Emily's request, I am forwarding my comments to the entire list. I had previously sent them just to Staff and the Co-Chairs >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Judith >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________________ >>> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >>> Hellerstein & Associates >>> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >>> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >>> Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 >>> E-mail: >>> Judith at jhellerstein.com >>> Website: >>> [www.jhellerstein.com](https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jhellerstein.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0d7321949dc74f242c7a08d71179089b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636997083839962264&sdata=dTrBNkw0WZd%2BXamN9ZiHIkFBSkQOm8%2B597317MYaOEE%3D&reserved=0) >>> Linked In: >>> [www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/](https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fjhellerstein%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0d7321949dc74f242c7a08d71179089b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636997083839972269&sdata=Xlk5aeQvQKQhcLaEB%2B1c7aAPRyqbKLqLWhUUMKpuJ9g%3D&reserved=0) >>> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: [Ext] My comments on the Auction Proceeds Draft >>> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:53:06 +0000 >>> From: Emily Barabas [](mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org) >>> To: judith at jhellerstein.com [](mailto:judith at jhellerstein.com), Marika Konings [](mailto:marika.konings at icann.org), erika at erikamann.com [](mailto:erika at erikamann.com), Joke Braeken [](mailto:joke.braeken at icann.org), ching.chiao at gmail.com [](mailto:ching.chiao at gmail.com) >>> >>> Hi Judith, >>> >>> Would you mind sending your feedback to the CCWG mailing list, or if you would like staff can do so on your behalf? Just let us know which you prefer. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Emily >>> >>> ?On 24/07/2019, 20:45, "Judith Hellerstein" [](mailto:judith at jhellerstein.com) wrote: >>> >>> HI Marika and Emily, >>> I am attaching my comments on the auction proceeds draft document. It seems clear to me that Mechanism A would not meet the independent requirements set up by the ICANN Board but do not see this referenced in the report. Perhaps I am misunderstanding some things. I have also added comments about Mechanism B and C as well as other issues >>> >>> Earlier today, I have also added comments to the google doc you posted today on the list serv >>> Thanks for extending the deadline to Friday. Look forward to the call on Wednesday >>> >>> Best, >>> Judith >>> -- _________________________________________________________________________ >>> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >>> Hellerstein & Associates >>> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >>> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >>> Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 >>> E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com Website: [www.jhellerstein.com](https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jhellerstein.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0d7321949dc74f242c7a08d71179089b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636997083839982280&sdata=u%2BsyO4UKsIYNZwE%2BrKNUbMx5wQpR6Q%2Bj1HPyp2G89NQ%3D&reserved=0) >>> Linked In: [www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/](https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fjhellerstein%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0d7321949dc74f242c7a08d71179089b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636997083839992291&sdata=X4DBJX0fXUpgMK8NeaX8WOJc80UGEAxQc0KD8w3gsg4%3D&reserved=0) >>> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org >>> [https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds](https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fccwg-auctionproceeds&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0d7321949dc74f242c7a08d71179089b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636997083840002302&sdata=KmLbBcm5oMaAKxigOLymYJXNos1X5PTh7Odkn%2BNcoIQ%3D&reserved=0) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ([https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy](https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0d7321949dc74f242c7a08d71179089b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636997083840012301&sdata=EuOpZTzinw%2BFANLliSjDSuaAmCouj7rHrr7vnXFIkvg%3D&reserved=0)) and the website Terms of Service ([https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos](https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0d7321949dc74f242c7a08d71179089b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636997083840022312&sdata=M3g5%2BQ8sT2hgy7kse5keOui006TshYQ102MNfS5JGxY%3D&reserved=0)). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Jul 27 02:45:40 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 08:45:40 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi all, we don't have so much time left, last chance for review. if there is no strong objection by saturday, I will submit the comment. Best, Rafik Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:34, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi Farzaneh, > > thanks for work, > @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more extension > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii > a ?crit : > >> Hi >> >> This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit >> >> Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. should be >> shared with the list as well. >> >> >> >> Farzaneh >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Jul 27 02:55:53 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 08:55:53 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft: NCSG Comment on the SSAC and RSSAC ICANN Bylaws Review. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, last chance to review this comment. if there is no objection, I will submit it this Saturday. Best, Rafik Le mer. 24 juil. 2019 ? 07:05, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi, > > we have this short comment for review and endorsement. > the deadline for submission is this Friday. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > De : Akinremi Peter Taiwo > Date: mer. 24 juil. 2019 ? 06:13 > Subject: Draft: NCSG Comment on the SSAC and RSSAC ICANN Bylaws Review. > To: NCUC-discuss > Cc: Rafik Dammak > > > Dear all, > > A few points has been drafted in response of the revisions to the ICANN > Bylaws SSAC and RSSAC Leadership for your review. The public comment is > only seeking the community view on the minor proposed changes of chair > limited term and structure of a single chair and vice chair. This I believe > is a standard. After the review of reference documents, the draft is in > support of the proposed changes. > > Below is the link for your quick edit > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W9wDsaGzlh4zK-qtRKjDJNbvViqpXIaApLfDzB-PUOo/edit > > Regards. > Peter. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Jul 27 02:57:09 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 08:57:09 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comment - Update Fund. Bylaws Amendment - IANA Naming Func. Rev. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: thanks Ayden. other members of PC, please review. if there is no strong objection, I will submit the comment thus Saturday. Best, Rafik Le mer. 24 juil. 2019 ? 11:11, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > I support the submission of this comment. > > -- Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 23:04, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi all, > > another comment to review on timely manner. > it is short but important comment to submit. the topic was brought several > times during the joint ccnso-gnso meeting. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > De : *Rapha?l Beauregard-Lacroix* > Date: mer. 24 juil. 2019 ? 11:00 > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comment - Update Fund. Bylaws Amendment - IANA > Naming Func. Rev. > To: > > > Dear all, > > Below a comment for review, drafted by Farzaneh and me. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q6Ngao33YpzGt9ziHDtSYiYHA9fJmqAcijQcWr9eDiE/edit > > > Note: being about a fundamental bylaws amendment, this comment is of > special importance ;) > > Deadline for submission is 26, so it must go to PC asap. > > Thanks, > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Jul 27 03:10:26 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 09:10:26 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Draft Financial Assumptions & Projections and Operating Initiatives for the development of Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan In-Reply-To: <0tZUE-zzPp0_xafZ139hC45GmwzBYxhWdfSk7LymVGJ4ixmaqiWrIut2aQOzYw6qiyQAAfETSWh_pXWU3BlCjhokZ7bE1o2Fd4Lvm7Ui6mI=@ferdeline.com> References: <0tZUE-zzPp0_xafZ139hC45GmwzBYxhWdfSk7LymVGJ4ixmaqiWrIut2aQOzYw6qiyQAAfETSWh_pXWU3BlCjhokZ7bE1o2Fd4Lvm7Ui6mI=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: hi, thanks Ayden for leading this drafting. @all please review the comment asap and get this done . Best, Rafik Le jeu. 25 juil. 2019 ? 02:30, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > On our call yesterday, the Finance Committee reviewed the proposed comment > on the financial assumptions and has made some modifications to paragraph 5 > of page 1, as we identified some factual errors in the original language. > The updated draft can be found here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15MRe6L9AkkS1e0y5LBzcLRxMfQt5Shi0RH7jIBKq8To/edit?usp=sharing > > It is not anticipated that the Finance Committee will review this comment > again, unless the Policy Committee flags any issues with it, so for now... > over to you Rafik and members of the Policy Committee to consider endorsing > it ;-) > > -- Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Wednesday, 10 July 2019 17:19, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > > Hi, > > Could members of the Policy Committee please review the below comment > before 22 July and advise if you have any questions or concerns. The > Finance Committee will be considering input on our call of 23 July. We will > then get a new version to the membership list and Policy Committee for your > potential endorsement. Thanks. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Monday, 8 July 2019 18:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Dear all, > > ICANN has opened an opportunity for public comment on the Financial > Assumptions that are embedded into the Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & > Financial Plan. > > The NCSG Finance Committee has drafted a response to this document here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15MRe6L9AkkS1e0y5LBzcLRxMfQt5Shi0RH7jIBKq8To/edit > > When you have a moment, please can you review our proposed response and > provide feedback either in the Google Doc itself (with your name attached) > or on this list *by 22 July*. > > This will allow the Finance Committee to review your input ahead of our > next call on 23 July. > > Further information on the Financial Assumptions can be found here: > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-financial-projections-fy2021-2025-2019-06-14-en > > Kind regards, > > Ayden F?rdeline > on behalf of the NCSG Finance Committee > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 28 01:52:48 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 22:52:48 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft: NCSG Comment on the SSAC and RSSAC ICANN Bylaws Review. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have made a number of factual changes to the text. Thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:55, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > last chance to review this comment. if there is no objection, I will submit it this Saturday. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mer. 24 juil. 2019 ? 07:05, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > >> Hi, >> >> we have this short comment for review and endorsement. >> the deadline for submission is this Friday. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> De : Akinremi Peter Taiwo >> Date: mer. 24 juil. 2019 ? 06:13 >> Subject: Draft: NCSG Comment on the SSAC and RSSAC ICANN Bylaws Review. >> To: NCUC-discuss >> Cc: Rafik Dammak >> >> Dear all, >> >> A few points has been drafted in response of the revisions to the ICANN Bylaws SSAC and RSSAC Leadership for your review. The public comment is only seeking the community view on the minor proposed changes of chair limited term and structure of a single chair and vice chair. This I believe is a standard. After the review of reference documents, the draft is in support of the proposed changes. >> >> Below is the link for your quick edit >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W9wDsaGzlh4zK-qtRKjDJNbvViqpXIaApLfDzB-PUOo/edit >> >> Regards. >> Peter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 28 01:55:27 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 22:55:27 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I do not support the submission of this comment at this time. I do not support the inclusion of the antagonistic language about "unnecessary expenditure", or referring to ICANN as not being a "unicorn". It is unprofessional. Ayden F?rdeline ??????? Original Message ??????? On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: > hi all, > > we don't have so much time left, last chance for review. > if there is no strong objection by saturday, I will submit the comment. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:34, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > >> Hi Farzaneh, >> >> thanks for work, >> @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more extension >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >> >>> Hi >>> >>> This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit >>> >>> Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. should be shared with the list as well. >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Jul 28 01:58:26 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 18:58:26 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: sorry about that. I did not notice I hadn't removed it from the draft document which I sent you . Was certainly planning to. Thanks for catching that. Is that the only problem you have with the document or is there something else wrong with it? I can surely address your concerns if you spell them out. On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:55 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I do not support the submission of this comment at this time. > > I do not support the inclusion of the antagonistic language about > "unnecessary expenditure", or referring to ICANN as not being a "unicorn". > It is unprofessional. > > Ayden F?rdeline > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:45, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > hi all, > > we don't have so much time left, last chance for review. > if there is no strong objection by saturday, I will submit the comment. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:34, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi Farzaneh, >> >> thanks for work, >> @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more extension >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii >> a ?crit : >> >>> Hi >>> >>> This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit >>> >>> Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. should be >>> shared with the list as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 28 02:00:16 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 23:00:16 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Farzi, I have annoted the document in Google Docs, leaving some comments where appropriate. When resolved I hope we will be able to submit this comment. I appreciate you drafting it. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Saturday, 27 July 2019 19:58, farzaneh badii wrote: > sorry about that. I did not notice I hadn't removed it from the draft document which I sent you . Was certainly planning to. Thanks for catching that. Is that the only problem you have with the document or is there something else wrong with it? I can surely address your concerns if you spell them out. > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:55 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> I do not support the submission of this comment at this time. >> >> I do not support the inclusion of the antagonistic language about "unnecessary expenditure", or referring to ICANN as not being a "unicorn". It is unprofessional. >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> hi all, >>> >>> we don't have so much time left, last chance for review. >>> if there is no strong objection by saturday, I will submit the comment. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:34, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>> >>>> thanks for work, >>>> @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more extension >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit >>>>> >>>>> Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. should be shared with the list as well. >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Jul 28 02:13:09 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 19:13:09 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sure thing. I just saw your comments. I removed The unicorn bit and will address the rest. On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:00 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thank you Farzi, I have annoted the document in Google Docs, leaving some > comments where appropriate. When resolved I hope we will be able to submit > this comment. I appreciate you drafting it. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Saturday, 27 July 2019 19:58, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > sorry about that. I did not notice I hadn't removed it from the draft > document which I sent you . Was certainly planning to. Thanks for catching > that. Is that the only problem you have with the document or is there > something else wrong with it? I can surely address your concerns if you > spell them out. > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:55 PM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> I do not support the submission of this comment at this time. >> >> I do not support the inclusion of the antagonistic language about >> "unnecessary expenditure", or referring to ICANN as not being a "unicorn". >> It is unprofessional. >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:45, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >> hi all, >> >> we don't have so much time left, last chance for review. >> if there is no strong objection by saturday, I will submit the comment. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:34, Rafik Dammak a >> ?crit : >> >>> Hi Farzaneh, >>> >>> thanks for work, >>> @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more extension >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii >>> a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit >>>> >>>> Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. should >>>> be shared with the list as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >> -- > Farzaneh > > > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Jul 28 02:34:50 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 19:34:50 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I tried to address the rest. I don't know why you don't like the language on keeping costs down through not having too many face to face meetings. But I'm not really attached to it so you can just delete it if you want. On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:13 PM farzaneh badii wrote: > Sure thing. I just saw your comments. I removed The unicorn bit and will > address the rest. > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:00 PM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> Thank you Farzi, I have annoted the document in Google Docs, leaving some >> comments where appropriate. When resolved I hope we will be able to submit >> this comment. I appreciate you drafting it. >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Saturday, 27 July 2019 19:58, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >> sorry about that. I did not notice I hadn't removed it from the draft >> document which I sent you . Was certainly planning to. Thanks for catching >> that. Is that the only problem you have with the document or is there >> something else wrong with it? I can surely address your concerns if you >> spell them out. >> >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:55 PM Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> I do not support the submission of this comment at this time. >>> >>> I do not support the inclusion of the antagonistic language about >>> "unnecessary expenditure", or referring to ICANN as not being a "unicorn". >>> It is unprofessional. >>> >>> Ayden F?rdeline >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:45, Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>> hi all, >>> >>> we don't have so much time left, last chance for review. >>> if there is no strong objection by saturday, I will submit the comment. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:34, Rafik Dammak a >>> ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>> >>>> thanks for work, >>>> @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more extension >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii >>>> a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit >>>>> >>>>> Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. should >>>>> be shared with the list as well. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>> >>> -- >> Farzaneh >> >> >> -- > Farzaneh > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 28 03:23:24 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 00:23:24 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I do not object to fiscal prudence, but there is value in face to face meetings *sometimes*, and this language suggested (or at least this is how I interpreted it) that face to face must be avoided in all circumstances to reduce operating costs. If we amend the text to make clear that face to face meetings are permitted where there is a need, I would be able to remove my objection. Thanks, Ayden On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 20:34, farzaneh badii wrote: > I tried to address the rest. I don't know why you don't like the language on keeping costs down through not having too many face to face meetings. But I'm not really attached to it so you can just delete it if you want. > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:13 PM farzaneh badii wrote: > >> Sure thing. I just saw your comments. I removed The unicorn bit and will address the rest. >> >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:00 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> Thank you Farzi, I have annoted the document in Google Docs, leaving some comments where appropriate. When resolved I hope we will be able to submit this comment. I appreciate you drafting it. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On Saturday, 27 July 2019 19:58, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> >>>> sorry about that. I did not notice I hadn't removed it from the draft document which I sent you . Was certainly planning to. Thanks for catching that. Is that the only problem you have with the document or is there something else wrong with it? I can surely address your concerns if you spell them out. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:55 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> I do not support the submission of this comment at this time. >>>>> >>>>> I do not support the inclusion of the antagonistic language about "unnecessary expenditure", or referring to ICANN as not being a "unicorn". It is unprofessional. >>>>> >>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> we don't have so much time left, last chance for review. >>>>>> if there is no strong objection by saturday, I will submit the comment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:34, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for work, >>>>>>> @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more extension >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. should be shared with the list as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >> >> -- >> >> Farzaneh > > -- > > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Jul 28 05:36:32 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 22:36:32 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The language says: for example by holding less face to face meetings. Less doesn't really mean it should be avoided at all costs. But I am gonna change it slightly. On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 8:23 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I do not object to fiscal prudence, but there is value in face to face > meetings *sometimes*, and this language suggested (or at least this is how > I interpreted it) that face to face must be avoided in all circumstances to > reduce operating costs. If we amend the text to make clear that face to > face meetings are permitted where there is a need, I would be able to > remove my objection. > > Thanks, Ayden > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 20:34, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > I tried to address the rest. I don't know why you don't like the language > on keeping costs down through not having too many face to face meetings. > But I'm not really attached to it so you can just delete it if you want. > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:13 PM farzaneh badii > wrote: > >> Sure thing. I just saw your comments. I removed The unicorn bit and will >> address the rest. >> >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:00 PM Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> Thank you Farzi, I have annoted the document in Google Docs, leaving >>> some comments where appropriate. When resolved I hope we will be able to >>> submit this comment. I appreciate you drafting it. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On Saturday, 27 July 2019 19:58, farzaneh badii < >>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> sorry about that. I did not notice I hadn't removed it from the draft >>> document which I sent you . Was certainly planning to. Thanks for catching >>> that. Is that the only problem you have with the document or is there >>> something else wrong with it? I can surely address your concerns if you >>> spell them out. >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:55 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I do not support the submission of this comment at this time. >>>> >>>> I do not support the inclusion of the antagonistic language about >>>> "unnecessary expenditure", or referring to ICANN as not being a "unicorn". >>>> It is unprofessional. >>>> >>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:45, Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> hi all, >>>> >>>> we don't have so much time left, last chance for review. >>>> if there is no strong objection by saturday, I will submit the comment. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:34, Rafik Dammak a >>>> ?crit : >>>> >>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>> >>>>> thanks for work, >>>>> @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more extension >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii < >>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit >>>>>> >>>>>> Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. should >>>>>> be shared with the list as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> -- >> Farzaneh >> > -- > Farzaneh > > > > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Jul 28 10:25:48 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 16:25:48 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: thanks Farzaneh and Ayden, we really need to submit. The staff is close to finish its summary report and the window for us to give input is quite narrow. the GNSO review is critical for us and this public comment is important for us to give input on, we cannot miss that. Farzaneh responded to the comments. I don't see any issue on substantial part of the comment which concerns the responses to the questions asked by the OEC. Best, Rafik Le dim. 28 juil. 2019 ? 11:36, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > The language says: for example by holding less face to face meetings. > > Less doesn't really mean it should be avoided at all costs. But I am gonna > change it slightly. > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 8:23 PM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> I do not object to fiscal prudence, but there is value in face to face >> meetings *sometimes*, and this language suggested (or at least this is how >> I interpreted it) that face to face must be avoided in all circumstances to >> reduce operating costs. If we amend the text to make clear that face to >> face meetings are permitted where there is a need, I would be able to >> remove my objection. >> >> Thanks, Ayden >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 20:34, farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >> I tried to address the rest. I don't know why you don't like the language >> on keeping costs down through not having too many face to face meetings. >> But I'm not really attached to it so you can just delete it if you want. >> >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:13 PM farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >>> Sure thing. I just saw your comments. I removed The unicorn bit and will >>> address the rest. >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:00 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you Farzi, I have annoted the document in Google Docs, leaving >>>> some comments where appropriate. When resolved I hope we will be able to >>>> submit this comment. I appreciate you drafting it. >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On Saturday, 27 July 2019 19:58, farzaneh badii < >>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> sorry about that. I did not notice I hadn't removed it from the draft >>>> document which I sent you . Was certainly planning to. Thanks for catching >>>> that. Is that the only problem you have with the document or is there >>>> something else wrong with it? I can surely address your concerns if you >>>> spell them out. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:55 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I do not support the submission of this comment at this time. >>>>> >>>>> I do not support the inclusion of the antagonistic language about >>>>> "unnecessary expenditure", or referring to ICANN as not being a "unicorn". >>>>> It is unprofessional. >>>>> >>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:45, Rafik Dammak >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> hi all, >>>>> >>>>> we don't have so much time left, last chance for review. >>>>> if there is no strong objection by saturday, I will submit the comment. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:34, Rafik Dammak >>>>> a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks for work, >>>>>> @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more >>>>>> extension >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii < >>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. >>>>>>> should be shared with the list as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> >> -- >> Farzaneh >> >> >> >> -- > Farzaneh > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Jul 28 15:54:35 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 08:54:35 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have addressed Ayden's comments sufficiently. I believe it is ready to be submitted. On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 3:26 AM Rafik Dammak wrote: > thanks Farzaneh and Ayden, > we really need to submit. The staff is close to finish its summary report > and the window for us to give input is quite narrow. > the GNSO review is critical for us and this public comment is important > for us to give input on, we cannot miss that. > Farzaneh responded to the comments. I don't see any issue on substantial > part of the comment which concerns the responses to the questions asked by > the OEC. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 28 juil. 2019 ? 11:36, farzaneh badii > a ?crit : > >> The language says: for example by holding less face to face meetings. >> >> Less doesn't really mean it should be avoided at all costs. But I am >> gonna change it slightly. >> >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 8:23 PM Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> I do not object to fiscal prudence, but there is value in face to face >>> meetings *sometimes*, and this language suggested (or at least this is how >>> I interpreted it) that face to face must be avoided in all circumstances to >>> reduce operating costs. If we amend the text to make clear that face to >>> face meetings are permitted where there is a need, I would be able to >>> remove my objection. >>> >>> Thanks, Ayden >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 20:34, farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>> I tried to address the rest. I don't know why you don't like the >>> language on keeping costs down through not having too many face to face >>> meetings. But I'm not really attached to it so you can just delete it if >>> you want. >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:13 PM farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Sure thing. I just saw your comments. I removed The unicorn bit and >>>> will address the rest. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:00 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you Farzi, I have annoted the document in Google Docs, leaving >>>>> some comments where appropriate. When resolved I hope we will be able to >>>>> submit this comment. I appreciate you drafting it. >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On Saturday, 27 July 2019 19:58, farzaneh badii < >>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> sorry about that. I did not notice I hadn't removed it from the draft >>>>> document which I sent you . Was certainly planning to. Thanks for catching >>>>> that. Is that the only problem you have with the document or is there >>>>> something else wrong with it? I can surely address your concerns if you >>>>> spell them out. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:55 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I do not support the submission of this comment at this time. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not support the inclusion of the antagonistic language about >>>>>> "unnecessary expenditure", or referring to ICANN as not being a "unicorn". >>>>>> It is unprofessional. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:45, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> we don't have so much time left, last chance for review. >>>>>> if there is no strong objection by saturday, I will submit the >>>>>> comment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:34, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for work, >>>>>>> @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more >>>>>>> extension >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii < >>>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. >>>>>>>> should be shared with the list as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >> Farzaneh >> > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 28 15:54:42 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 12:54:42 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9kiSbUWY2Gng4eiGTs2rrThiTQBwe104BOzDZVvuDy00zN2mJmzm5_s4sorviXyKpkIBZTZevuWyLCGKKnxfBvDHGHKBFObBzUbMv_tIWoQ=@ferdeline.com> I appreciate the edits, but I still am unable to support the submission of this comment. I am going to propose some edits directly into the Google Doc now. Thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Sunday, 28 July 2019 04:25, Rafik Dammak wrote: > thanks Farzaneh and Ayden, > we really need to submit. The staff is close to finish its summary report and the window for us to give input is quite narrow. > the GNSO review is critical for us and this public comment is important for us to give input on, we cannot miss that. > Farzaneh responded to the comments. I don't see any issue on substantial part of the comment which concerns the responses to the questions asked by the OEC. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 28 juil. 2019 ? 11:36, farzaneh badii a ?crit : > >> The language says: for example by holding less face to face meetings. >> >> Less doesn't really mean it should be avoided at all costs. But I am gonna change it slightly. >> >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 8:23 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> I do not object to fiscal prudence, but there is value in face to face meetings *sometimes*, and this language suggested (or at least this is how I interpreted it) that face to face must be avoided in all circumstances to reduce operating costs. If we amend the text to make clear that face to face meetings are permitted where there is a need, I would be able to remove my objection. >>> >>> Thanks, Ayden >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 20:34, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> >>>> I tried to address the rest. I don't know why you don't like the language on keeping costs down through not having too many face to face meetings. But I'm not really attached to it so you can just delete it if you want. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:13 PM farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sure thing. I just saw your comments. I removed The unicorn bit and will address the rest. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:00 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Farzi, I have annoted the document in Google Docs, leaving some comments where appropriate. When resolved I hope we will be able to submit this comment. I appreciate you drafting it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On Saturday, 27 July 2019 19:58, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> sorry about that. I did not notice I hadn't removed it from the draft document which I sent you . Was certainly planning to. Thanks for catching that. Is that the only problem you have with the document or is there something else wrong with it? I can surely address your concerns if you spell them out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:55 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do not support the submission of this comment at this time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do not support the inclusion of the antagonistic language about "unnecessary expenditure", or referring to ICANN as not being a "unicorn". It is unprofessional. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>> On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> we don't have so much time left, last chance for review. >>>>>>>>> if there is no strong objection by saturday, I will submit the comment. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:34, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> thanks for work, >>>>>>>>>> @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more extension >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. should be shared with the list as well. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >> >> -- >> Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 28 16:23:53 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 13:23:53 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: <9kiSbUWY2Gng4eiGTs2rrThiTQBwe104BOzDZVvuDy00zN2mJmzm5_s4sorviXyKpkIBZTZevuWyLCGKKnxfBvDHGHKBFObBzUbMv_tIWoQ=@ferdeline.com> References: <9kiSbUWY2Gng4eiGTs2rrThiTQBwe104BOzDZVvuDy00zN2mJmzm5_s4sorviXyKpkIBZTZevuWyLCGKKnxfBvDHGHKBFObBzUbMv_tIWoQ=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: I have noted that all but one of my edits has now been accepted. Thank you for this. However the one edit that has not been accepted is something I feel strongly about. I think it is too descriptive for us to state that face to face meetings of Review Teams should be reduced in order to lower their cost. Travel is not a significant cost for the Reviews; consultants, legal advice, and professional services are roughly 60% of the budgeted cost of the Reviews, so it I do not know why there has been this focus on reducing the possibility for Review Teams to have face-to-face meetings. I do realise that some, like the recent RDS Review, seemed to have an excessive number of meetings in Brussels, but that was not an organizational review and so I don't think this is the time and place to raise this concern. Thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Sunday, 28 July 2019 09:54, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I appreciate the edits, but I still am unable to support the submission of this comment. > > I am going to propose some edits directly into the Google Doc now. > > Thanks, Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Sunday, 28 July 2019 04:25, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> thanks Farzaneh and Ayden, >> we really need to submit. The staff is close to finish its summary report and the window for us to give input is quite narrow. >> the GNSO review is critical for us and this public comment is important for us to give input on, we cannot miss that. >> Farzaneh responded to the comments. I don't see any issue on substantial part of the comment which concerns the responses to the questions asked by the OEC. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le dim. 28 juil. 2019 ? 11:36, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >> >>> The language says: for example by holding less face to face meetings. >>> >>> Less doesn't really mean it should be avoided at all costs. But I am gonna change it slightly. >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 8:23 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> I do not object to fiscal prudence, but there is value in face to face meetings *sometimes*, and this language suggested (or at least this is how I interpreted it) that face to face must be avoided in all circumstances to reduce operating costs. If we amend the text to make clear that face to face meetings are permitted where there is a need, I would be able to remove my objection. >>>> >>>> Thanks, Ayden >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 20:34, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> >>>>> I tried to address the rest. I don't know why you don't like the language on keeping costs down through not having too many face to face meetings. But I'm not really attached to it so you can just delete it if you want. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:13 PM farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sure thing. I just saw your comments. I removed The unicorn bit and will address the rest. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:00 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you Farzi, I have annoted the document in Google Docs, leaving some comments where appropriate. When resolved I hope we will be able to submit this comment. I appreciate you drafting it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>> On Saturday, 27 July 2019 19:58, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sorry about that. I did not notice I hadn't removed it from the draft document which I sent you . Was certainly planning to. Thanks for catching that. Is that the only problem you have with the document or is there something else wrong with it? I can surely address your concerns if you spell them out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:55 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I do not support the submission of this comment at this time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I do not support the inclusion of the antagonistic language about "unnecessary expenditure", or referring to ICANN as not being a "unicorn". It is unprofessional. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>> On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> hi all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> we don't have so much time left, last chance for review. >>>>>>>>>> if there is no strong objection by saturday, I will submit the comment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:34, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> thanks for work, >>>>>>>>>>> @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more extension >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. should be shared with the list as well. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>> >>> -- >>> Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 28 16:25:50 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 13:25:50 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: References: <9kiSbUWY2Gng4eiGTs2rrThiTQBwe104BOzDZVvuDy00zN2mJmzm5_s4sorviXyKpkIBZTZevuWyLCGKKnxfBvDHGHKBFObBzUbMv_tIWoQ=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: (I am trying to find a citation for this, but am struggling - however I do think it is true: organizational reviews do not have a budget for travel, only specific reviews do.) Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Sunday, 28 July 2019 10:23, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > I have noted that all but one of my edits has now been accepted. Thank you for this. > > However the one edit that has not been accepted is something I feel strongly about. I think it is too descriptive for us to state that face to face meetings of Review Teams should be reduced in order to lower their cost. Travel is not a significant cost for the Reviews; consultants, legal advice, and professional services are roughly 60% of the budgeted cost of the Reviews, so it I do not know why there has been this focus on reducing the possibility for Review Teams to have face-to-face meetings. I do realise that some, like the recent RDS Review, seemed to have an excessive number of meetings in Brussels, but that was not an organizational review and so I don't think this is the time and place to raise this concern. > > Thanks, Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Sunday, 28 July 2019 09:54, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> I appreciate the edits, but I still am unable to support the submission of this comment. >> >> I am going to propose some edits directly into the Google Doc now. >> >> Thanks, Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Sunday, 28 July 2019 04:25, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> thanks Farzaneh and Ayden, >>> we really need to submit. The staff is close to finish its summary report and the window for us to give input is quite narrow. >>> the GNSO review is critical for us and this public comment is important for us to give input on, we cannot miss that. >>> Farzaneh responded to the comments. I don't see any issue on substantial part of the comment which concerns the responses to the questions asked by the OEC. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> Le dim. 28 juil. 2019 ? 11:36, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >>> >>>> The language says: for example by holding less face to face meetings. >>>> >>>> Less doesn't really mean it should be avoided at all costs. But I am gonna change it slightly. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 8:23 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> I do not object to fiscal prudence, but there is value in face to face meetings *sometimes*, and this language suggested (or at least this is how I interpreted it) that face to face must be avoided in all circumstances to reduce operating costs. If we amend the text to make clear that face to face meetings are permitted where there is a need, I would be able to remove my objection. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, Ayden >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 20:34, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I tried to address the rest. I don't know why you don't like the language on keeping costs down through not having too many face to face meetings. But I'm not really attached to it so you can just delete it if you want. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:13 PM farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure thing. I just saw your comments. I removed The unicorn bit and will address the rest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:00 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you Farzi, I have annoted the document in Google Docs, leaving some comments where appropriate. When resolved I hope we will be able to submit this comment. I appreciate you drafting it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>> On Saturday, 27 July 2019 19:58, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> sorry about that. I did not notice I hadn't removed it from the draft document which I sent you . Was certainly planning to. Thanks for catching that. Is that the only problem you have with the document or is there something else wrong with it? I can surely address your concerns if you spell them out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:55 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I do not support the submission of this comment at this time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I do not support the inclusion of the antagonistic language about "unnecessary expenditure", or referring to ICANN as not being a "unicorn". It is unprofessional. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> we don't have so much time left, last chance for review. >>>>>>>>>>> if there is no strong objection by saturday, I will submit the comment. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:34, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for work, >>>>>>>>>>>> @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more extension >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. should be shared with the list as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sun Jul 28 16:38:03 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 09:38:03 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: References: <9kiSbUWY2Gng4eiGTs2rrThiTQBwe104BOzDZVvuDy00zN2mJmzm5_s4sorviXyKpkIBZTZevuWyLCGKKnxfBvDHGHKBFObBzUbMv_tIWoQ=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: In the spirit of compromise I accepted your change to remove the suggestion for lesser face to face meeting. On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 9:26 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > (I am trying to find a citation for this, but am struggling - however I do > think it is true: organizational reviews do not have a budget for travel, > only specific reviews do.) > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Sunday, 28 July 2019 10:23, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > > I have noted that all but one of my edits has now been accepted. Thank you > for this. > > However the one edit that has not been accepted is something I feel > strongly about. I think it is too descriptive for us to state that face to > face meetings of Review Teams should be reduced in order to lower their > cost. Travel is not a significant cost for the Reviews; consultants, legal > advice, and professional services are roughly 60% of the budgeted cost of > the Reviews, so it I do not know why there has been this focus on reducing > the possibility for Review Teams to have face-to-face meetings. I do > realise that some, like the recent RDS Review, seemed to have an excessive > number of meetings in Brussels, but that was not an organizational review > and so I don't think this is the time and place to raise this concern. > > Thanks, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Sunday, 28 July 2019 09:54, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > > I appreciate the edits, but I still am unable to support the submission of > this comment. > > I am going to propose some edits directly into the Google Doc now. > > Thanks, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Sunday, 28 July 2019 04:25, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > thanks Farzaneh and Ayden, > we really need to submit. The staff is close to finish its summary report > and the window for us to give input is quite narrow. > the GNSO review is critical for us and this public comment is important > for us to give input on, we cannot miss that. > Farzaneh responded to the comments. I don't see any issue on substantial > part of the comment which concerns the responses to the questions asked by > the OEC. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le dim. 28 juil. 2019 ? 11:36, farzaneh badii > a ?crit : > >> The language says: for example by holding less face to face meetings. >> >> Less doesn't really mean it should be avoided at all costs. But I am >> gonna change it slightly. >> >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 8:23 PM Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >>> I do not object to fiscal prudence, but there is value in face to face >>> meetings *sometimes*, and this language suggested (or at least this is how >>> I interpreted it) that face to face must be avoided in all circumstances to >>> reduce operating costs. If we amend the text to make clear that face to >>> face meetings are permitted where there is a need, I would be able to >>> remove my objection. >>> >>> Thanks, Ayden >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 20:34, farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>> I tried to address the rest. I don't know why you don't like the >>> language on keeping costs down through not having too many face to face >>> meetings. But I'm not really attached to it so you can just delete it if >>> you want. >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:13 PM farzaneh badii >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Sure thing. I just saw your comments. I removed The unicorn bit and >>>> will address the rest. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:00 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you Farzi, I have annoted the document in Google Docs, leaving >>>>> some comments where appropriate. When resolved I hope we will be able to >>>>> submit this comment. I appreciate you drafting it. >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On Saturday, 27 July 2019 19:58, farzaneh badii < >>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> sorry about that. I did not notice I hadn't removed it from the draft >>>>> document which I sent you . Was certainly planning to. Thanks for catching >>>>> that. Is that the only problem you have with the document or is there >>>>> something else wrong with it? I can surely address your concerns if you >>>>> spell them out. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:55 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I do not support the submission of this comment at this time. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not support the inclusion of the antagonistic language about >>>>>> "unnecessary expenditure", or referring to ICANN as not being a "unicorn". >>>>>> It is unprofessional. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:45, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> we don't have so much time left, last chance for review. >>>>>> if there is no strong objection by saturday, I will submit the >>>>>> comment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:34, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for work, >>>>>>> @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more >>>>>>> extension >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii < >>>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. >>>>>>>> should be shared with the list as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >> Farzaneh >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 28 16:57:52 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 13:57:52 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: References: <9kiSbUWY2Gng4eiGTs2rrThiTQBwe104BOzDZVvuDy00zN2mJmzm5_s4sorviXyKpkIBZTZevuWyLCGKKnxfBvDHGHKBFObBzUbMv_tIWoQ=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Thank you. With this change to the comment, I withdraw my objection, and am happy to support its submission. Thanks for drafting it. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Sunday, 28 July 2019 10:38, farzaneh badii wrote: > In the spirit of compromise I accepted your change to remove the suggestion for lesser face to face meeting. > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 9:26 AM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> (I am trying to find a citation for this, but am struggling - however I do think it is true: organizational reviews do not have a budget for travel, only specific reviews do.) >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Sunday, 28 July 2019 10:23, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> I have noted that all but one of my edits has now been accepted. Thank you for this. >>> >>> However the one edit that has not been accepted is something I feel strongly about. I think it is too descriptive for us to state that face to face meetings of Review Teams should be reduced in order to lower their cost. Travel is not a significant cost for the Reviews; consultants, legal advice, and professional services are roughly 60% of the budgeted cost of the Reviews, so it I do not know why there has been this focus on reducing the possibility for Review Teams to have face-to-face meetings. I do realise that some, like the recent RDS Review, seemed to have an excessive number of meetings in Brussels, but that was not an organizational review and so I don't think this is the time and place to raise this concern. >>> >>> Thanks, Ayden >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On Sunday, 28 July 2019 09:54, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> >>>> I appreciate the edits, but I still am unable to support the submission of this comment. >>>> >>>> I am going to propose some edits directly into the Google Doc now. >>>> >>>> Thanks, Ayden >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On Sunday, 28 July 2019 04:25, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> thanks Farzaneh and Ayden, >>>>> we really need to submit. The staff is close to finish its summary report and the window for us to give input is quite narrow. >>>>> the GNSO review is critical for us and this public comment is important for us to give input on, we cannot miss that. >>>>> Farzaneh responded to the comments. I don't see any issue on substantial part of the comment which concerns the responses to the questions asked by the OEC. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> Le dim. 28 juil. 2019 ? 11:36, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >>>>> >>>>>> The language says: for example by holding less face to face meetings. >>>>>> >>>>>> Less doesn't really mean it should be avoided at all costs. But I am gonna change it slightly. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 8:23 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not object to fiscal prudence, but there is value in face to face meetings *sometimes*, and this language suggested (or at least this is how I interpreted it) that face to face must be avoided in all circumstances to reduce operating costs. If we amend the text to make clear that face to face meetings are permitted where there is a need, I would be able to remove my objection. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 20:34, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I tried to address the rest. I don't know why you don't like the language on keeping costs down through not having too many face to face meetings. But I'm not really attached to it so you can just delete it if you want. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:13 PM farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure thing. I just saw your comments. I removed The unicorn bit and will address the rest. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:00 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you Farzi, I have annoted the document in Google Docs, leaving some comments where appropriate. When resolved I hope we will be able to submit this comment. I appreciate you drafting it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 27 July 2019 19:58, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> sorry about that. I did not notice I hadn't removed it from the draft document which I sent you . Was certainly planning to. Thanks for catching that. Is that the only problem you have with the document or is there something else wrong with it? I can surely address your concerns if you spell them out. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:55 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I do not support the submission of this comment at this time. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I do not support the inclusion of the antagonistic language about "unnecessary expenditure", or referring to ICANN as not being a "unicorn". It is unprofessional. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:45, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we don't have so much time left, last chance for review. >>>>>>>>>>>>> if there is no strong objection by saturday, I will submit the comment. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:34, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for work, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more extension >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii a ?crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. should be shared with the list as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Farzaneh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Jul 28 18:39:20 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 15:39:20 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] NextGen@ICANN Program Community Consultation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So frustrating that this community consultation has been hidden away on a new webpage, that no one would know to look for, and not linked to from the ICANN homepage, recent blog post on the NextGen program, or even from the ICANN public comments page. We have now lost 3 weeks and there is just a month left to offer input on the future of the NextGen program. I hope that the NCSG will be responding to this. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Sunday, 28 July 2019 12:36, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Dear all, > > I have just stumbled across this webpage and discovered that there is currently a community consultation underway (since 9 July) on the future of the NextGen at ICANN program. This consultation opportunity is NOT listed on the ICANN public comments page. > > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/nextgen-community-consultation-2019-07-09-en > > I was wondering if there was a desire for the GNSO Council to respond to this consultation. If so, I would like to express my interest in joining the drafting team for our comment. Thanks. > > Best wishes, > Ayden F?rdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 29 01:24:00 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 07:24:00 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft: NCSG Comment on the SSAC and RSSAC ICANN Bylaws Review. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi , thanks, the edits were accpeted. Seeing no objection I will submit the comment. Best, Rafik Le dim. 28 juil. 2019 ? 07:52, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > I have made a number of factual changes to the text. > > Thanks, Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:55, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi all, > > last chance to review this comment. if there is no objection, I will > submit it this Saturday. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mer. 24 juil. 2019 ? 07:05, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi, >> >> we have this short comment for review and endorsement. >> the deadline for submission is this Friday. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> De : *Akinremi Peter Taiwo* >> Date: mer. 24 juil. 2019 ? 06:13 >> Subject: Draft: NCSG Comment on the SSAC and RSSAC ICANN Bylaws Review. >> To: NCUC-discuss >> Cc: Rafik Dammak >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> A few points has been drafted in response of the revisions to the ICANN >> Bylaws SSAC and RSSAC Leadership for your review. The public comment is >> only seeking the community view on the minor proposed changes of chair >> limited term and structure of a single chair and vice chair. This I believe >> is a standard. After the review of reference documents, the draft is in >> support of the proposed changes. >> >> Below is the link for your quick edit >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W9wDsaGzlh4zK-qtRKjDJNbvViqpXIaApLfDzB-PUOo/edit >> >> Regards. >> Peter. >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 29 01:24:43 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 07:24:43 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comment - Update Fund. Bylaws Amendment - IANA Naming Func. Rev. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, seeing no objection, I will submit the comment. Best, Rafik Le sam. 27 juil. 2019 ? 08:57, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > thanks Ayden. other members of PC, please review. > if there is no strong objection, I will submit the comment thus Saturday. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mer. 24 juil. 2019 ? 11:11, Ayden F?rdeline a > ?crit : > >> I support the submission of this comment. >> >> -- Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 23:04, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> another comment to review on timely manner. >> it is short but important comment to submit. the topic was brought >> several times during the joint ccnso-gnso meeting. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> De : *Rapha?l Beauregard-Lacroix* >> Date: mer. 24 juil. 2019 ? 11:00 >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Comment - Update Fund. Bylaws Amendment - IANA >> Naming Func. Rev. >> To: >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> Below a comment for review, drafted by Farzaneh and me. >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q6Ngao33YpzGt9ziHDtSYiYHA9fJmqAcijQcWr9eDiE/edit >> >> >> Note: being about a fundamental bylaws amendment, this comment is of >> special importance ;) >> >> Deadline for submission is 26, so it must go to PC asap. >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Jul 29 01:25:31 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 07:25:31 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Organizational reviews In-Reply-To: References: <9kiSbUWY2Gng4eiGTs2rrThiTQBwe104BOzDZVvuDy00zN2mJmzm5_s4sorviXyKpkIBZTZevuWyLCGKKnxfBvDHGHKBFObBzUbMv_tIWoQ=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: thanks all, since there is no more objection, I will submit the comment. Best, Rafik Le dim. 28 juil. 2019 ? 22:58, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Thank you. With this change to the comment, I withdraw my objection, and > am happy to support its submission. Thanks for drafting it. > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Sunday, 28 July 2019 10:38, farzaneh badii > wrote: > > In the spirit of compromise I accepted your change to remove the > suggestion for lesser face to face meeting. > > > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 9:26 AM Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: > >> (I am trying to find a citation for this, but am struggling - however I >> do think it is true: organizational reviews do not have a budget for >> travel, only specific reviews do.) >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Sunday, 28 July 2019 10:23, Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >> I have noted that all but one of my edits has now been accepted. Thank >> you for this. >> >> However the one edit that has not been accepted is something I feel >> strongly about. I think it is too descriptive for us to state that face to >> face meetings of Review Teams should be reduced in order to lower their >> cost. Travel is not a significant cost for the Reviews; consultants, legal >> advice, and professional services are roughly 60% of the budgeted cost of >> the Reviews, so it I do not know why there has been this focus on reducing >> the possibility for Review Teams to have face-to-face meetings. I do >> realise that some, like the recent RDS Review, seemed to have an excessive >> number of meetings in Brussels, but that was not an organizational review >> and so I don't think this is the time and place to raise this concern. >> >> Thanks, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Sunday, 28 July 2019 09:54, Ayden F?rdeline >> wrote: >> >> I appreciate the edits, but I still am unable to support the submission >> of this comment. >> >> I am going to propose some edits directly into the Google Doc now. >> >> Thanks, Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Sunday, 28 July 2019 04:25, Rafik Dammak >> wrote: >> >> thanks Farzaneh and Ayden, >> we really need to submit. The staff is close to finish its summary report >> and the window for us to give input is quite narrow. >> the GNSO review is critical for us and this public comment is important >> for us to give input on, we cannot miss that. >> Farzaneh responded to the comments. I don't see any issue on substantial >> part of the comment which concerns the responses to the questions asked by >> the OEC. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Le dim. 28 juil. 2019 ? 11:36, farzaneh badii >> a ?crit : >> >>> The language says: for example by holding less face to face meetings. >>> >>> Less doesn't really mean it should be avoided at all costs. But I am >>> gonna change it slightly. >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 8:23 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I do not object to fiscal prudence, but there is value in face to face >>>> meetings *sometimes*, and this language suggested (or at least this is how >>>> I interpreted it) that face to face must be avoided in all circumstances to >>>> reduce operating costs. If we amend the text to make clear that face to >>>> face meetings are permitted where there is a need, I would be able to >>>> remove my objection. >>>> >>>> Thanks, Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 20:34, farzaneh badii >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I tried to address the rest. I don't know why you don't like the >>>> language on keeping costs down through not having too many face to face >>>> meetings. But I'm not really attached to it so you can just delete it if >>>> you want. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:13 PM farzaneh badii < >>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sure thing. I just saw your comments. I removed The unicorn bit and >>>>> will address the rest. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:00 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Farzi, I have annoted the document in Google Docs, leaving >>>>>> some comments where appropriate. When resolved I hope we will be able to >>>>>> submit this comment. I appreciate you drafting it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>> On Saturday, 27 July 2019 19:58, farzaneh badii < >>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> sorry about that. I did not notice I hadn't removed it from the draft >>>>>> document which I sent you . Was certainly planning to. Thanks for catching >>>>>> that. Is that the only problem you have with the document or is there >>>>>> something else wrong with it? I can surely address your concerns if you >>>>>> spell them out. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 6:55 PM Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not support the submission of this comment at this time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not support the inclusion of the antagonistic language about >>>>>>> "unnecessary expenditure", or referring to ICANN as not being a "unicorn". >>>>>>> It is unprofessional. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden F?rdeline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>>>> On Friday, 26 July 2019 20:45, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> we don't have so much time left, last chance for review. >>>>>>> if there is no strong objection by saturday, I will submit the >>>>>>> comment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:34, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Farzaneh, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> thanks for work, >>>>>>>> @all please review and do the proof-reading. there is no more >>>>>>>> extension >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 ? 13:26, farzaneh badii < >>>>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> a ?crit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is a first rough draft for organizational reviews. >>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TD-rqV23z0XAhHzLLzRy9A88OASCPHujIEq7gW4DcfA/edit >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow is the deadline. Please look over it and let me know. >>>>>>>>> should be shared with the list as well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> Farzaneh >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -- > Farzaneh > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 30 02:18:44 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:18:44 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] IMPORTANT: Initial Draft of Comments on 5YSP FA & OIs Public Consultation In-Reply-To: References: <2c4ec4d4f9074ee086b22032151f6fa8@verisign.com> Message-ID: Attached are some edits I have proposed to the GNSO Council comment on the financial assumptions document, embedding many of the perspectives raised on the proposed NCSG comment on this matter. Please advise if you have any concerns/requested edits and I will take these forward to the Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO). (Still looking to be replaced there, by the way! The SCBO has a lot of work on its plate, and it makes a lot more sense for there to be continuity and the one NCSG rep there now and through the conclusion of the FY21 budgetary process.) Many thanks, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday, 29 July 2019 20:15, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Given the time crunch we are under, I am sharing my edits to this document as an attachment now - I have not yet received NCSG input, but if/when I do, I will advise on this list if it differs from anything in the attached file. Thanks. > > -- Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Monday, 29 July 2019 19:49, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Hi Keith, all- >> >> Thank you for the reminder about this comment. >> >> I am currently reviewing the draft with NCSG colleagues and will share NCSG comments and proposed edits as soon as we can. >> >> I hope others too will be able to share input as a matter of priority. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden F?rdeline >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Friday, 26 July 2019 10:54, Drazek, Keith via Gnso-sc-budget wrote: >> >>> Hello SCBO colleagues. >>> >>> The Council has a deadline of Monday, 5 August to submit comments on the ICANN 5-Year Strategic Planning Process Financial Assumptions and Operating Initiatives. That leaves us just a few days to finalize our SCBO recommendations for Council review and consideration. >>> >>> This is an important topic and the SCBO needs to step up and do its work here, and we need to deliver draft comments to the Council by early next week so the full Council has time to review. I am setting a deadline of Tuesday for the SCBO to finalize its recommended text. >>> >>> Berry has developed an excellent first draft (attached) with additional comments for consideration, but it?s the responsibility of the SCBO to do this substantive work and bring it to completion. Please make time to review and provide input. I will help finalize this, but this comment period is precisely why the SCBO was established and why you all volunteered to join and contribute. >>> >>> Thanks in advance. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> From: Gnso-sc-budget On Behalf Of mail at berrycobb.com >>> Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 12:41 AM >>> To: gnso-sc-budget at icann.org >>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-sc-budget] Initial Draft of Comments on 5YSP FA & OIs Public Consultation >>> >>> I?m attaching a word doc as easy reference in case there?s an issue with accessing the google link. >>> >>> B >>> >>> Berry Cobb >>> >>> @berrycobb >>> >>> GNSO Policy Consultant >>> >>> From: mail at berrycobb.com >>> Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 00:35 >>> To: gnso-sc-budget at icann.org >>> Subject: Initial Draft of Comments on 5YSP FA & OIs Public Consultation >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Please see a link to a google doc with an initial draft of comments for the SCBO to consider, revise, and build upon for review by the GNSO Council. I?ve listed out two sections for each document that is a part of the public comment until 5 August. There?s a small comment on the Financial Assumptions document and the Operational Initiatives has a sub-section for each of the 16, some of which are placeholders that require attention. There are a series of side bar comments to review and consider as well. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yw7NEdeZICrnK9ZsdX-gXmX9YYvsadRz/edit >>> >>> As a reminder, we are meeting with the CCNSO?s SOPC next 23 July at 12:00 UTC. An agenda will be sent out shortly, but it will mostly focus around the comments to be submitted and the 5YSP in general. If we have time, we might also discuss the potential for future engagements around the budget cycle. >>> >>> Thank you and please let me know if you have questions in the mean time. >>> >>> B >>> >>> Berry Cobb >>> >>> @berrycobb >>> >>> GNSO Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN 5YSP FA and OI - GNSO Council Comments_v0.2 - AF edits.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 67089 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Jul 30 16:11:24 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:11:24 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] financial assumptions Message-ID: I have been reading the discussions on the auction proceeds list, and there was an interesting comment made which has left me wondering if we should pre-emptively comment here in our statement on the financial assumptions. We have not really heard clearly from from ICANN org which mechanisms may also have risks to ICANN Org, or, more importantly for this comment, consume ICANN Org resources, versus which can be fulfilled by external resources [and thus charged to the auction proceed funds]. At least one approach under discussion seems to be looking at how ICANN Org can "recover" funding by charging back for comms/legal, etc. Perhaps this is outside of ICANN's core mission but I am not sure I like the idea that ICANN Org can turn to the auction proceeds fund potentially to pay for whatever overheard it wants... Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: