From stephanie.perrin Wed Mar 13 04:15:00 2019 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 02:15:00 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Reminder: FC meeting at 15:15pm (Japan, Kobe local time) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <329ca8d2-ebe2-ff1c-afda-1c640aa125e7@mail.utoronto.ca> This meeting conflicts with many key pdps, notably RPMs and the RDAP implementation trial. As i continue to underscore, working on policy is our primary job here. I am ccing the EC in hopes some of them will be able to participate, I think I may have to go to the RDAP implementation trial which is in KICCs, the 10 minute walk place. Sorry, not much we can do about this. We need to do the Chair election process, because we technically do not have an FC Chair at the moment. If I may suggest adding this to the agenda as the first item, we could ensure quorum and get that over with. Stephanie On 2019-03-12 20:20, Thato Mfikwe wrote: Hi memebrs, This is a friendly reminder that the NCSG FC will be holding its meeting today during ICANN64 with members, please join in so that we have much broader participation on this critical meeting which will be reviewing section 2.6 of the NCSG charter and paving a way forward on the Draft FC Operational Procedures, which relate to activitiies of the Finance Committee. Please also share with members of NPOC, thanks. Thato Mfikwe. _______________________________________________ Ncuc-discuss mailing list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Mar 1 16:43:42 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 23:43:42 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft comment - Report on CSC Effectiveness In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: hi all, seeing no objection or comment, I assume that the comment is endorsed. unless I hear strong objections in coming hours, I will submit it. Best, Rafik Le mar. 26 f?vr. 2019 ? 13:36, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi all, > > please review the draft comment. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > Le sam. 23 f?vr. 2019 ? 14:27, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> hi all, >> >> please find this draft comment for PC review. >> it is straightforward one. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Rapha?l Beauregard-Lacroix >> Date: sam. 23 f?vr. 2019 ? 13:03 >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft comment - Report on CSC Effectiveness >> To: >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> Please have a look and make comments and suggestions on this draft. >> Submission deadline is Feb 25th and it has to pass through the PC by then >> as well! >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRbrBd0uBrn41IXFwo03FdNLjJHqzIPb3KVYqU7nvsg/edit >> >> Thank you for your time, >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Mar 4 08:00:51 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 06:00:51 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Late markup In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I sent the attached markup of the final RDS REview II to the review team. I do not like the tone of the report, nor do I really support many of the recommendations, particularly the sections on Law Enforcement and accuracy. One could tear apart the way the survey was done, the bias against privacy, etc. I was alone on these issues, with occasional support from Volker. I think he just gave up as this being shortly to be proven irrelevant. Anyway, here it is, for those with boring plane rides where they want to fall asleep. I did not verify the correct transpostion of the appendices, nor the definitions. Cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Late markup Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 00:51:46 -0500 From: Stephanie Perrin To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List

Attached is my markup of the document. Overall, this document is impressive in its scope and research. Basically, I think many of our recommendations are sensible. However, the bias towards disclosure of information, the negative attitude towards the GDPR (which my SG applauds as exemplary effort to protect privacy and human rights), and the absence of any explicit recognition of the fact that our WHOIS practices already violated data protection law during the time of the past review are discouraging. Not to mention the fact that the birth of ICANN coincided with the coming into force of the EU directive, and we have had plenty of advice from the DPAs over the past 19 years telling us how to fix it. The push to continue doing what we have done since ICANN was born, regardless of changing risks, improvements in data protection, and the existence of many other ways to achieve the security and stability of the Internet, is discouraging. I realize we had to review the recommendations of the previous Review team. We live in different times, however, and the evidence of that impacting our review is not there. Given how many issues I have reservations about, I would like to make a statement, but I am not quite sure where it belongs. I do not want to resist consensus, but I do want to register some frustration with this process and final result. I do appreciate that I am a minority view and that you have tolerated my raising my comments and objections throughout the process. Stephanie Perrin Chair, NCSG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Final Report_v1.2-2019-02-22-ag-v11sp.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 2713396 bytes Desc: Final Report_v1.2-2019-02-22-ag-v11sp.docx URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Mar 4 09:32:54 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 07:32:54 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Late markup In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Thanks for this Stephanie, I have just reviewed your annotated version of the report and your analysis is excellent. You are more diplomatic than I would have been though! Please do stand your ground; I hope they do not just publish the final report ignoring your comments and instead seek to address them... but is there any possibility that they will do that? Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday, March 4, 2019 7:00 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I sent the attached markup of the final RDS REview II to the review team. I do not like the tone of the report, nor do I really support many of the recommendations, particularly the sections on Law Enforcement and accuracy. One could tear apart the way the survey was done, the bias against privacy, etc. I was alone on these issues, with occasional support from Volker. I think he just gave up as this being shortly to be proven irrelevant. > > Anyway, here it is, for those with boring plane rides where they want to fall asleep. I did not verify the correct transpostion of the appendices, nor the definitions. > > Cheers Steph > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Late markup > Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 00:51:46 -0500 > From: Stephanie Perrin [](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) > > To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List [](mailto:rds-whois2-rt at icann.org) > > Attached is my markup of the document. Overall, this document is impressive in its scope and research. Basically, I think many of our recommendations are sensible. However, the bias towards disclosure of information, the negative attitude towards the GDPR (which my SG applauds as exemplary effort to protect privacy and human rights), and the absence of any explicit recognition of the fact that our WHOIS practices already violated data protection law during the time of the past review are discouraging. Not to mention the fact that the birth of ICANN coincided with the coming into force of the EU directive, and we have had plenty of advice from the DPAs over the past 19 years telling us how to fix it. The push to continue doing what we have done since ICANN was born, regardless of changing risks, improvements in data protection, and the existence of many other ways to achieve the security and stability of the Internet, is discouraging. I realize we had to review the recommendations of the previous Review team. We live in different times, however, and the evidence of that impacting our review is not there. > > Given how many issues I have reservations about, I would like to make a statement, but I am not quite sure where it belongs. I do not want to resist consensus, but I do want to register some frustration with this process and final result. I do appreciate that I am a minority view and that you have tolerated my raising my comments and objections throughout the process. > > Stephanie Perrin > > Chair, NCSG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Mar 4 16:29:36 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 14:29:36 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Late markup In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: I think it is likely they will accept none of my comments....too late. But I will hold my ground. Thanks for reading it. Obviously my principal objection is that it was framed entirely the wrong way in the first place. Plus an unnecessary review at this time. But that ship sailed during the first meeting in Brussels, which I attended remotely (never a good option when you are the minority) because I had to go to the DPAs meeting around the same time to finish the ICANN report. Too much work, too few hands on deck. However, the good news is we now have 9 members who are intimately familiar with the WHOIS fight, fresh from the EPDP, so we have more folks who can hit the many pdps that will have to resolve some of the issues mentioned under Anything New..... Cheers Stephanie On 2019-03-04 02:32, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: Thanks for this Stephanie, I have just reviewed your annotated version of the report and your analysis is excellent. You are more diplomatic than I would have been though! Please do stand your ground; I hope they do not just publish the final report ignoring your comments and instead seek to address them... but is there any possibility that they will do that? Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday, March 4, 2019 7:00 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: I sent the attached markup of the final RDS REview II to the review team. I do not like the tone of the report, nor do I really support many of the recommendations, particularly the sections on Law Enforcement and accuracy. One could tear apart the way the survey was done, the bias against privacy, etc. I was alone on these issues, with occasional support from Volker. I think he just gave up as this being shortly to be proven irrelevant. Anyway, here it is, for those with boring plane rides where they want to fall asleep. I did not verify the correct transpostion of the appendices, nor the definitions. Cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Late markup Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 00:51:46 -0500 From: Stephanie Perrin To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List

Attached is my markup of the document. Overall, this document is impressive in its scope and research. Basically, I think many of our recommendations are sensible. However, the bias towards disclosure of information, the negative attitude towards the GDPR (which my SG applauds as exemplary effort to protect privacy and human rights), and the absence of any explicit recognition of the fact that our WHOIS practices already violated data protection law during the time of the past review are discouraging. Not to mention the fact that the birth of ICANN coincided with the coming into force of the EU directive, and we have had plenty of advice from the DPAs over the past 19 years telling us how to fix it. The push to continue doing what we have done since ICANN was born, regardless of changing risks, improvements in data protection, and the existence of many other ways to achieve the security and stability of the Internet, is discouraging. I realize we had to review the recommendations of the previous Review team. We live in different times, however, and the evidence of that impacting our review is not there. Given how many issues I have reservations about, I would like to make a statement, but I am not quite sure where it belongs. I do not want to resist consensus, but I do want to register some frustration with this process and final result. I do appreciate that I am a minority view and that you have tolerated my raising my comments and objections throughout the process. Stephanie Perrin Chair, NCSG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wendy at seltzer.org Mon Mar 4 17:31:08 2019 From: wendy at seltzer.org (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 10:31:08 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Late markup In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <8B084CE1-C6E4-4719-BCF5-6D84125F2D16@seltzer.org> On March 4, 2019 9:29:36 AM EST, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >I think it is likely they will accept none of my comments....too late. >But I will hold my ground. Thanks Stephanie! --Wendy > >Thanks for reading it. Obviously my principal objection is that it was >framed entirely the wrong way in the first place. Plus an unnecessary >review at this time. But that ship sailed during the first meeting in >Brussels, which I attended remotely (never a good option when you are >the minority) because I had to go to the DPAs meeting around the same >time to finish the ICANN report. > >Too much work, too few hands on deck. However, the good news is we now >have 9 members who are intimately familiar with the WHOIS fight, fresh >from the EPDP, so we have more folks who can hit the many pdps that >will have to resolve some of the issues mentioned under Anything >New..... > >Cheers Stephanie > >On 2019-03-04 02:32, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >Thanks for this Stephanie, I have just reviewed your annotated version >of the report and your analysis is excellent. You are more diplomatic >than I would have been though! Please do stand your ground; I hope they >do not just publish the final report ignoring your comments and instead >seek to address them... but is there any possibility that they will do >that? > >Ayden > > >??????? Original Message ??????? >On Monday, March 4, 2019 7:00 AM, Stephanie Perrin > >wrote: > > >I sent the attached markup of the final RDS REview II to the review >team. I do not like the tone of the report, nor do I really support >many of the recommendations, particularly the sections on Law >Enforcement and accuracy. One could tear apart the way the survey was >done, the bias against privacy, etc. I was alone on these issues, with >occasional support from Volker. I think he just gave up as this being >shortly to be proven irrelevant. > >Anyway, here it is, for those with boring plane rides where they want >to fall asleep. I did not verify the correct transpostion of the >appendices, nor the definitions. > >Cheers Steph > > >-------- Forwarded Message -------- >Subject: > Late markup > >Date: > Mon, 4 Mar 2019 00:51:46 -0500 > >From: >Stephanie Perrin > > >To: >RDS WHOIS2-RT List >

> > > > >Attached is my markup of the document. Overall, this document is >impressive in its scope and research. Basically, I think many of our >recommendations are sensible. However, the bias towards disclosure of >information, the negative attitude towards the GDPR (which my SG >applauds as exemplary effort to protect privacy and human rights), and >the absence of any explicit recognition of the fact that our WHOIS >practices already violated data protection law during the time of the >past review are discouraging. Not to mention the fact that the birth >of ICANN coincided with the coming into force of the EU directive, and >we have had plenty of advice from the DPAs over the past 19 years >telling us how to fix it. The push to continue doing what we have >done since ICANN was born, regardless of changing risks, improvements >in data protection, and the existence of many other ways to achieve the >security and stability of the Internet, is discouraging. I realize we >had to review the recommendations of the previous Review team. We live >in different times, however, and the evidence of that impacting our >review is not there. > >Given how many issues I have reservations about, I would like to make a >statement, but I am not quite sure where it belongs. I do not want to >resist consensus, but I do want to register some frustration with this >process and final result. I do appreciate that I am a minority view >and that you have tolerated my raising my comments and objections >throughout the process. > >Stephanie Perrin > >Chair, NCSG -- Wendy Seltzer wendy at seltzer.org mobile +1.617.863.0613 From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Mar 4 18:46:09 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:46:09 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Late markup In-Reply-To: <8B084CE1-C6E4-4719-BCF5-6D84125F2D16@seltzer.org> References:

<8B084CE1-C6E4-4719-BCF5-6D84125F2D16@seltzer.org> Message-ID: <2d2f656d-a302-a101-6af0-90da922bdf27@mail.utoronto.ca> Thanks Wendy, great to hear from you! Feel like joining a few pdps? heh heh :-D cheers Steph On 2019-03-04 10:31, Wendy Seltzer wrote: On March 4, 2019 9:29:36 AM EST, Stephanie Perrin wrote: I think it is likely they will accept none of my comments....too late. But I will hold my ground. Thanks Stephanie! --Wendy Thanks for reading it. Obviously my principal objection is that it was framed entirely the wrong way in the first place. Plus an unnecessary review at this time. But that ship sailed during the first meeting in Brussels, which I attended remotely (never a good option when you are the minority) because I had to go to the DPAs meeting around the same time to finish the ICANN report. Too much work, too few hands on deck. However, the good news is we now have 9 members who are intimately familiar with the WHOIS fight, fresh >from the EPDP, so we have more folks who can hit the many pdps that will have to resolve some of the issues mentioned under Anything New..... Cheers Stephanie On 2019-03-04 02:32, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: Thanks for this Stephanie, I have just reviewed your annotated version of the report and your analysis is excellent. You are more diplomatic than I would have been though! Please do stand your ground; I hope they do not just publish the final report ignoring your comments and instead seek to address them... but is there any possibility that they will do that? Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday, March 4, 2019 7:00 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: I sent the attached markup of the final RDS REview II to the review team. I do not like the tone of the report, nor do I really support many of the recommendations, particularly the sections on Law Enforcement and accuracy. One could tear apart the way the survey was done, the bias against privacy, etc. I was alone on these issues, with occasional support from Volker. I think he just gave up as this being shortly to be proven irrelevant. Anyway, here it is, for those with boring plane rides where they want to fall asleep. I did not verify the correct transpostion of the appendices, nor the definitions. Cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Late markup Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 00:51:46 -0500 From: Stephanie Perrin To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List

Attached is my markup of the document. Overall, this document is impressive in its scope and research. Basically, I think many of our recommendations are sensible. However, the bias towards disclosure of information, the negative attitude towards the GDPR (which my SG applauds as exemplary effort to protect privacy and human rights), and the absence of any explicit recognition of the fact that our WHOIS practices already violated data protection law during the time of the past review are discouraging. Not to mention the fact that the birth of ICANN coincided with the coming into force of the EU directive, and we have had plenty of advice from the DPAs over the past 19 years telling us how to fix it. The push to continue doing what we have done since ICANN was born, regardless of changing risks, improvements in data protection, and the existence of many other ways to achieve the security and stability of the Internet, is discouraging. I realize we had to review the recommendations of the previous Review team. We live in different times, however, and the evidence of that impacting our review is not there. Given how many issues I have reservations about, I would like to make a statement, but I am not quite sure where it belongs. I do not want to resist consensus, but I do want to register some frustration with this process and final result. I do appreciate that I am a minority view and that you have tolerated my raising my comments and objections throughout the process. Stephanie Perrin Chair, NCSG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Mar 4 18:52:34 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:52:34 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Late markup In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI. If anyone would care to comment on my statement, I will be writing it on the long plane ride I have tomorrow. cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Late markup Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:51:17 +0000 From: Stephanie Perrin To: Alan Greenberg , RDS WHOIS2-RT List

Thanks a lot Alan, that seems reasonable. I will be happy to work with Jean Baptiste on this if he has questions. Really, there are no surprises in there. My statement is really going to be more about the framing of the review, about which we had little choice under the circumstances, and perhaps the tone which could be materially improved by a couple of additions. The fact is, ICANN has not wanted to hear about data protection for 19 years and now we are racing to retrofit. cheers SP On 2019-03-04 10:42, Alan Greenberg wrote: Hi Stephanie, I am getting on a plane in 48 hours and my next two days were already pretty full! And I am unavailable for the two weeks following the ICANN meeting. I will integrate those parts of your comments that in my opinion (and those of Cathrin and Susan to the extent that I can dialogue with them) are not controversial. Those that would really need to have the review team re-convened to discuss will not be included. To do that would delay the issuance of the report well into April and I do not believe that we should do that. Changes to the actual recommendations (other than purely grammatical) are in a similar vein. Those have been out there for many weeks and to make changes to them will require going back to the entire review team. Once I finish the integration I will return the document to you with comments about what I did not integrate. I would appreciate knowing if that will remove your support for any recommendations and whether you will submit a statement very soon after that. Once I leave for Kobe, Jean-Baptiste will continue finalizing the report formatting and such and will integrate your statement is there is one. The intent is that swe ship this out before the end of the week. I appreciate your desire to not break consensus, but if my failure to integrate any specific comment on a Recommendation, I will understand that. I strongly support your submitting a statement if you wish (labelled as a minority statement or simply as a statement from you without attempting to classifying it. It will go into an Addendum appended at the end of the report-proper (before the Appendices which may be packaged into a separate PDF to keep the document size reasonable. And I will insert a reference to it in both the Exec Summary and the body of the report. Alan At 04/03/2019 12:52 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: Attached is my markup of the document. Overall, this document is impressive in its scope and research. Basically, I think many of our recommendations are sensible. However, the bias towards disclosure of information, the negative attitude towards the GDPR (which my SG applauds as exemplary effort to protect privacy and human rights), and the absence of any explicit recognition of the fact that our WHOIS practices already violated data protection law during the time of the past review are discouraging. Not to mention the fact that the birth of ICANN coincided with the coming into force of the EU directive, and we have had plenty of advice from the DPAs over the past 19 years telling us how to fix it. The push to continue doing what we have done since ICANN was born, regardless of changing risks, improvements in data protection, and the existence of many other ways to achieve the security and stability of the Internet, is discouraging. I realize we had to review the recommendations of the previous Review team. We live in different times, however, and the evidence of that impacting our review is not there. Given how many issues I have reservations about, I would like to make a statement, but I am not quite sure where it belongs. I do not want to resist consensus, but I do want to register some frustration with this process and final result. I do appreciate that I am a minority view and that you have tolerated my raising my comments and objections throughout the process. Stephanie Perrin Chair, NCSG _______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Mar 4 19:03:51 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 17:03:51 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Late markup In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: I would like to read it. And I think it is generous of Alan to offer to fully embed your statement and not to label it as a minority statement. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Monday, March 4, 2019 5:52 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > FYI. If anyone would care to comment on my statement, I will be writing it on the long plane ride I have tomorrow. > > cheers Steph > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Late markup > Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:51:17 +0000 > From: Stephanie Perrin [](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) > > To: Alan Greenberg [](mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca), RDS WHOIS2-RT List [](mailto:rds-whois2-rt at icann.org) > > Thanks a lot Alan, that seems reasonable. I will be happy to work with Jean Baptiste on this if he has questions. Really, there are no surprises in there. My statement is really going to be more about the framing of the review, about which we had little choice under the circumstances, and perhaps the tone which could be materially improved by a couple of additions. The fact is, ICANN has not wanted to hear about data protection for 19 years and now we are racing to retrofit. > > cheers SP > > On 2019-03-04 10:42, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> I am getting on a plane in 48 hours and my next two days were already pretty full! And I am unavailable for the two weeks following the ICANN meeting. >> >> I will integrate those parts of your comments that in my opinion (and those of Cathrin and Susan to the extent that I can dialogue with them) are not controversial. Those that would really need to have the review team re-convened to discuss will not be included. To do that would delay the issuance of the report well into April and I do not believe that we should do that. >> >> Changes to the actual recommendations (other than purely grammatical) are in a similar vein. Those have been out there for many weeks and to make changes to them will require going back to the entire review team. >> >> Once I finish the integration I will return the document to you with comments about what I did not integrate. I would appreciate knowing if that will remove your support for any recommendations and whether you will submit a statement very soon after that. Once I leave for Kobe, Jean-Baptiste will continue finalizing the report formatting and such and will integrate your statement is there is one. The intent is that swe ship this out before the end of the week. >> >> I appreciate your desire to not break consensus, but if my failure to integrate any specific comment on a Recommendation, I will understand that. I strongly support your submitting a statement if you wish (labelled as a minority statement or simply as a statement from you without attempting to classifying it. It will go into an Addendum appended at the end of the report-proper (before the Appendices which may be packaged into a separate PDF to keep the document size reasonable. And I will insert a reference to it in both the Exec Summary and the body of the report. >> >> Alan >> >> At 04/03/2019 12:52 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >>> Attached is my markup of the document. Overall, this document is impressive in its scope and research. Basically, I think many of our recommendations are sensible. However, the bias towards disclosure of information, the negative attitude towards the GDPR (which my SG applauds as exemplary effort to protect privacy and human rights), and the absence of any explicit recognition of the fact that our WHOIS practices already violated data protection law during the time of the past review are discouraging. Not to mention the fact that the birth of ICANN coincided with the coming into force of the EU directive, and we have had plenty of advice from the DPAs over the past 19 years telling us how to fix it. The push to continue doing what we have done since ICANN was born, regardless of changing risks, improvements in data protection, and the existence of many other ways to achieve the security and stability of the Internet, is discouraging. I realize we had to review the recommendations of the previous Review team. We live in different times, however, and the evidence of that impacting our review is not there. >>> >>> Given how many issues I have reservations about, I would like to make a statement, but I am not quite sure where it belongs. I do not want to resist consensus, but I do want to register some frustration with this process and final result. I do appreciate that I am a minority view and that you have tolerated my raising my comments and objections throughout the process. >>> >>> Stephanie Perrin >>> >>> Chair, NCSG >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list >>> RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 01:17:06 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 08:17:06 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG representatives to EPDP team Message-ID: Hi all, Keith communicated last week with all chairs of groups represented in EPDP team to confirm or replace their members there for phase 2. The same communication was shared with EPDP team. We are confirming with our NCSG representatives if they are willing to continue for phase 2. We might need to do some replacements and we have to act quickly in order for new appointees to catch-up. It also depends on the expected workload and that is ongoing discussion. One way is to tweak the previous call for candidates and send it asap in order to get a good pool of candidates from where to select. please let me know your thoughts and suggestions. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Mar 5 05:00:38 2019 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 22:00:38 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG representatives to EPDP team In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Rafik, I think it would help to know how many of our incredible EPDP Team are willing, ready and able to continue their? back-breaking work on the EPDP.? If they are all ready to continue, I think we would benefit from the continuity (and their incredible sacrifice). In all events, before we put a call out for replacements, it would be good to know how many places, if any, we are filling. Best,Kathy On 3/4/2019 6:17 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > Keith communicated last week with all chairs of groups represented in > EPDP team to confirm or replace their members there for phase 2. The > same communication was shared with EPDP team. > > We are confirming with our NCSG representatives if they are willing to > continue for phase 2. We might need to do some replacements and we > have to act quickly in order for new appointees to catch-up. It also > depends on the expected workload and that is ongoing discussion. > > One way is to tweak the previous call for candidates and send it asap > in order to get a good pool of candidates from where to select. > please let me know your thoughts and suggestions. > > Best, > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 05:09:25 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 12:09:25 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG representatives to EPDP team In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hi Kathy, Thanks, I think I clearly indicated that we are confirming with current members for their availability for phase 2. It is likely we will have to make replacement. It is not too early to prepare for the process. Best. Rafik On Tue, Mar 5, 2019, 12:01 Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi Rafik, > > I think it would help to know how many of our incredible EPDP Team are > willing, ready and able to continue their back-breaking work on the EPDP. > If they are all ready to continue, I think we would benefit from the > continuity (and their incredible sacrifice). In all events, before we put a > call out for replacements, it would be good to know how many places, if > any, we are filling. > > Best,Kathy > On 3/4/2019 6:17 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > Keith communicated last week with all chairs of groups represented in EPDP > team to confirm or replace their members there for phase 2. The same > communication was shared with EPDP team. > > We are confirming with our NCSG representatives if they are willing to > continue for phase 2. We might need to do some replacements and we have to > act quickly in order for new appointees to catch-up. It also depends on the > expected workload and that is ongoing discussion. > > One way is to tweak the previous call for candidates and send it asap in > order to get a good pool of candidates from where to select. > please let me know your thoughts and suggestions. > > Best, > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 05:40:10 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 22:40:10 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG representatives to EPDP team In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Milton and I are willing to continue. On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:09 PM Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Kathy, > > Thanks, > I think I clearly indicated that we are confirming with current members > for their availability for phase 2. It is likely we will have to make > replacement. It is not too early to prepare for the process. > > Best. > > Rafik > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019, 12:01 Kathy Kleiman wrote: > >> Hi Rafik, >> >> I think it would help to know how many of our incredible EPDP Team are >> willing, ready and able to continue their back-breaking work on the EPDP. >> If they are all ready to continue, I think we would benefit from the >> continuity (and their incredible sacrifice). In all events, before we put a >> call out for replacements, it would be good to know how many places, if >> any, we are filling. >> >> Best,Kathy >> On 3/4/2019 6:17 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Keith communicated last week with all chairs of groups represented in >> EPDP team to confirm or replace their members there for phase 2. The same >> communication was shared with EPDP team. >> >> We are confirming with our NCSG representatives if they are willing to >> continue for phase 2. We might need to do some replacements and we have to >> act quickly in order for new appointees to catch-up. It also depends on the >> expected workload and that is ongoing discussion. >> >> One way is to tweak the previous call for candidates and send it asap in >> order to get a good pool of candidates from where to select. >> please let me know your thoughts and suggestions. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Mar 5 10:24:06 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 08:24:06 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: 2019 Call for Workshop Proposals Message-ID: Sharing for information purposes; in case we want to work on an NCSG workshop proposal for the IGF? Bet wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:03 AM, Anja Gengo wrote: > Dear All, > > The IGF 2019 Call for Workshop Proposals is OPEN https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-call-for-workshop-proposals-0 > > This year's process introduced a few improvements, such for example is focusing the programme of the annual meeting on the three thematic focus areas: > > 1. Data Governance > > > 2. Digital Inclusion > > > 3. Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience > > > > The deadline to submit your workshop proposals is 12 April 2019, 23:59 p.m. UTC. > > The workshop submission form contains detailed guidelines on each form filed. > > Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the IGF Secretariat. > > We would appreciate if you would share the Call for Workshop Proposals with your respective communities. > > Best regards, > > IGF Secretariat > > Igfnewcomers mailing list > Igfnewcomers at intgovforum.org > To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfnewcomers_intgovforum.org -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Tue Mar 5 10:28:15 2019 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 09:28:15 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG representatives to EPDP team In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hi all, I?ll stay on EPDP, too (in my current position as alternate). Cheers, Tanya On Tue 5. Mar 2019 at 04:40, farzaneh badii wrote: > Milton and I are willing to continue. > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:09 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > >> Hi Kathy, >> >> Thanks, >> I think I clearly indicated that we are confirming with current members >> for their availability for phase 2. It is likely we will have to make >> replacement. It is not too early to prepare for the process. >> >> Best. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019, 12:01 Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> >>> Hi Rafik, >>> >>> I think it would help to know how many of our incredible EPDP Team are >>> willing, ready and able to continue their back-breaking work on the EPDP. >>> If they are all ready to continue, I think we would benefit from the >>> continuity (and their incredible sacrifice). In all events, before we put a >>> call out for replacements, it would be good to know how many places, if >>> any, we are filling. >>> >>> Best,Kathy >>> On 3/4/2019 6:17 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Keith communicated last week with all chairs of groups represented in >>> EPDP team to confirm or replace their members there for phase 2. The same >>> communication was shared with EPDP team. >>> >>> We are confirming with our NCSG representatives if they are willing to >>> continue for phase 2. We might need to do some replacements and we have to >>> act quickly in order for new appointees to catch-up. It also depends on the >>> expected workload and that is ongoing discussion. >>> >>> One way is to tweak the previous call for candidates and send it asap in >>> order to get a good pool of candidates from where to select. >>> please let me know your thoughts and suggestions. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat Mar 9 05:11:28 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 03:11:28 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement for the RDS REview 2 final report. Message-ID: <99d59176-3d61-a342-46bd-65934e7e8a14@mail.utoronto.ca> Attached is the statement I proposed to send to Alan Greenberg, reflecting my comments on the REview Team exercise. Please let me know if you have comments or suggested revisions, he is pushing to get it today so they can release the report. Many thanks to Ayden for his review and helpful comments. Steph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Statement of the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group Member of the RDS Review Team.2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 25683 bytes Desc: Statement of the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group Member of the RDS Review Team.2.docx URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat Mar 9 05:14:31 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 03:14:31 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement for the RDS REview 2 final report. In-Reply-To: <99d59176-3d61-a342-46bd-65934e7e8a14@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <99d59176-3d61-a342-46bd-65934e7e8a14@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Thanks for all your work here Stephanie; I support the submission of this statement. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Saturday, March 9, 2019 4:11 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Attached is the statement I proposed to send to Alan Greenberg, reflecting my comments on the REview Team exercise. Please let me know if you have comments or suggested revisions, he is pushing to get it today so they can release the report. > > Many thanks to Ayden for his review and helpful comments. > > Steph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at davecake.net Sat Mar 9 08:46:48 2019 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 15:46:48 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement for the RDS REview 2 final report. In-Reply-To: <99d59176-3d61-a342-46bd-65934e7e8a14@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <99d59176-3d61-a342-46bd-65934e7e8a14@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <73A6F01D-56E7-40A3-97F8-246FD89C577C@davecake.net> I support the submission of this statement. David > On 9 Mar 2019, at 12:11 pm, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Attached is the statement I proposed to send to Alan Greenberg, reflecting my comments on the REview Team exercise. Please let me know if you have comments or suggested revisions, he is pushing to get it today so they can release the report. > > Many thanks to Ayden for his review and helpful comments. > > Steph > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at davecake.net Sat Mar 9 08:49:41 2019 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 15:49:41 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG representatives to EPDP team In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <48B027A8-3926-43E6-85A1-3EC270B00A32@davecake.net> I think that some of the material in part 2 I will be able to more usefully make contributions than I was in the later part of part 1, so I am happy to continue as an alternate. Regards David > On 5 Mar 2019, at 4:28 pm, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > > Hi all, > I?ll stay on EPDP, too (in my current position as alternate). > Cheers, > Tanya > > On Tue 5. Mar 2019 at 04:40, farzaneh badii > wrote: > Milton and I are willing to continue. > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:09 PM Rafik Dammak > wrote: > Hi Kathy, > > Thanks, > I think I clearly indicated that we are confirming with current members for their availability for phase 2. It is likely we will have to make replacement. It is not too early to prepare for the process. > > Best. > > Rafik > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019, 12:01 Kathy Kleiman > wrote: > Hi Rafik, > > I think it would help to know how many of our incredible EPDP Team are willing, ready and able to continue their back-breaking work on the EPDP. If they are all ready to continue, I think we would benefit from the continuity (and their incredible sacrifice). In all events, before we put a call out for replacements, it would be good to know how many places, if any, we are filling. > > Best,Kathy > > On 3/4/2019 6:17 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Keith communicated last week with all chairs of groups represented in EPDP team to confirm or replace their members there for phase 2. The same communication was shared with EPDP team. >> >> We are confirming with our NCSG representatives if they are willing to continue for phase 2. We might need to do some replacements and we have to act quickly in order for new appointees to catch-up. It also depends on the expected workload and that is ongoing discussion. >> >> One way is to tweak the previous call for candidates and send it asap in order to get a good pool of candidates from where to select. >> please let me know your thoughts and suggestions. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- > Farzaneh > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Mar 10 06:36:13 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 04:36:13 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] Fwd: Correspondence on behalf of John Jeffrey In-Reply-To: <7E1BE740-D2BD-4C26-804E-B01CA40EEE6C@verisign.com> References: <7E1BE740-D2BD-4C26-804E-B01CA40EEE6C@verisign.com> Message-ID: Sharing for information purposes. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Saturday, March 9, 2019 8:55 PM, Drazek, Keith via council wrote: > Hi all, > > Please note the email below and attachments from ICANN Legal. These relate to the issue of enforceability of ICANN?s Expected Standards of Behavior and the disciplinary situation in the RPM PDP WG that developed around ICANN63 in Barcelona. We can discuss further today. > > Regards, > Keith > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: John Jeffrey >> Date: March 9, 2019 at 8:20:30 PM GMT+9 >> To: "Drazek, Keith" >> Cc: Goran Marby , Samantha Eisner , David Olive >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Correspondence on behalf of John Jeffrey > >> Dear Mr. Drazek, >> >> The attached are sent on behalf of John Jeffrey. >> >> Thank you in advance for acknowledging receipt of this email. >> >> Best, >> Peg >> >> -- >> >> Peg Rettino >> >> Project Specialist & Executive Assistant to John Jeffrey >> >> General Counsel and Secretary >> >> ICANN >> >> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >> >> Los Angeles, CA 90094 >> >> peg.rettino at icann.org >> >> Skype: peg.rettino >> >> Direct: 310-301-3868 > >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to Drazek_9Mar19.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 115006 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Recommendations for Enforcement of Expected Standards of Behavior - UPDATE.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 39742 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sun Mar 10 06:36:55 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 04:36:55 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] Fwd: Correspondence on behalf of John Jeffrey In-Reply-To: References: <117228E0-E78A-466C-8804-F6A9BCFB9EEA@icann.org> Message-ID: <27YbjmoCYLR-bNDiQDjLAtPelNGvktOCk6lhvpHiqSIAlfaIXbJRHAFhta-Kt9dZ2-MvPTrBsHg7tvyI-l6QfKTTz_-nayaZ1hc-eqQMoPQ=@ferdeline.com> Sharing for information purposes; the attachments differ from the previous email with the same heading. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Saturday, March 9, 2019 8:58 PM, Drazek, Keith via council wrote: > Hi all, > > Further on this issue, attached is the letter from ICANN Legal to Mr. Kirikos and his counsel. > > Best, > Keith > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: John Jeffrey >> Date: March 9, 2019 at 8:20:28 PM GMT+9 >> To: "abernstein at torys.com" , "george at loffs.com" >> Cc: "BECKHAM, Brian" , "Corwin, Philip" , "Drazek, Keith" , "Samantha Eisner" , "robin at ipjustice.org" , Kathy Kleiman , "pmcgrady at winston.com" , David Olive , Greg Shatan >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Correspondence on behalf of John Jeffrey > >> Dear Messers. Bernstein and Kirikos: >> >> Please see the attached correspondence sent on behalf of John Jeffrey. >> >> Thank you in advance for acknowledging receipt of this email. >> >> Best, >> Peg >> >> -- >> >> Peg Rettino >> >> Project Specialist & Executive Assistant to John Jeffrey >> >> General Counsel and Secretary >> >> ICANN >> >> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >> >> Los Angeles, CA 90094 >> >> peg.rettino at icann.org >> >> Skype: peg.rettino >> >> Direct: 310-301-3868 > >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to Kirikos and Bernstein_9Mar19.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 288470 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Thu Mar 14 13:58:29 2019 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:58:29 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Statement for the RDS REview 2 final report. In-Reply-To: <99d59176-3d61-a342-46bd-65934e7e8a14@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <99d59176-3d61-a342-46bd-65934e7e8a14@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <8ED236F3-2E0D-444F-8BE0-95ADCE2FEB6D@benin2point0.org> Well done Stephanie. I have no comments. @__f_f__ Best Regards ____________________________________ (Ekue) Farell FOLLY NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 9 Mar 2019, at 04:11, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Attached is the statement I proposed to send to Alan Greenberg, reflecting my comments on the REview Team exercise. Please let me know if you have comments or suggested revisions, he is pushing to get it today so they can release the report. > > Many thanks to Ayden for his review and helpful comments. > > Steph > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Mar 26 06:11:20 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:11:20 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG representatives to EPDP team In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I am resuming the discussion for this. First action will to finalize the confirmation with all members. I only heard from Farzaneh, Milton, Amr that they will continue as rep and Tatiana and David as alternate.I assume Stephanie will continue. I aiming to confirm by Friday so we can have fairly quick call to replace if needed. Best, Rafik Le mar. 5 mars 2019 ? 08:17, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi all, > > Keith communicated last week with all chairs of groups represented in EPDP > team to confirm or replace their members there for phase 2. The same > communication was shared with EPDP team. > > We are confirming with our NCSG representatives if they are willing to > continue for phase 2. We might need to do some replacements and we have to > act quickly in order for new appointees to catch-up. It also depends on the > expected workload and that is ongoing discussion. > > One way is to tweak the previous call for candidates and send it asap in > order to get a good pool of candidates from where to select. > please let me know your thoughts and suggestions. > > Best, > > Rafik > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Mar 26 17:48:46 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 15:48:46 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG representatives to EPDP team In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <6d84d832-a099-4aeb-dfd8-f0e563d48da0@mail.utoronto.ca> Sorry, I thought I had confirmed. Yes, I am in for the next haul. Stephanie On 2019-03-26 00:11, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi all, I am resuming the discussion for this. First action will to finalize the confirmation with all members. I only heard from Farzaneh, Milton, Amr that they will continue as rep and Tatiana and David as alternate.I assume Stephanie will continue. I aiming to confirm by Friday so we can have fairly quick call to replace if needed. Best, Rafik Le mar. 5 mars 2019 ? 08:17, Rafik Dammak > a ?crit : Hi all, Keith communicated last week with all chairs of groups represented in EPDP team to confirm or replace their members there for phase 2. The same communication was shared with EPDP team. We are confirming with our NCSG representatives if they are willing to continue for phase 2. We might need to do some replacements and we have to act quickly in order for new appointees to catch-up. It also depends on the expected workload and that is ongoing discussion. One way is to tweak the previous call for candidates and send it asap in order to get a good pool of candidates from where to select. please let me know your thoughts and suggestions. Best, Rafik _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Mar 27 16:47:41 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 23:47:41 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG representatives to EPDP team In-Reply-To: <6d84d832-a099-4aeb-dfd8-f0e563d48da0@mail.utoronto.ca> References:

<6d84d832-a099-4aeb-dfd8-f0e563d48da0@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: thanks Stephanie. we are still missing Ayden and Julf confirmation. I thought Ayden expressed his intention to not continue previously but stated he was still thinking during Kobe meeting in PC session. I would like to close this quickly and that we do call for candidates asap. Best, Rafik Le mer. 27 mars 2019 ? 00:48, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > Sorry, I thought I had confirmed. Yes, I am in for the next haul. > > Stephanie > On 2019-03-26 00:11, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am resuming the discussion for this. First action will to finalize the > confirmation with all members. > I only heard from Farzaneh, Milton, Amr that they will continue as rep and > Tatiana and David as alternate.I assume Stephanie will continue. > I aiming to confirm by Friday so we can have fairly quick call to replace > if needed. > > Best, > > Rafik > Le mar. 5 mars 2019 ? 08:17, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> Keith communicated last week with all chairs of groups represented in >> EPDP team to confirm or replace their members there for phase 2. The same >> communication was shared with EPDP team. >> >> We are confirming with our NCSG representatives if they are willing to >> continue for phase 2. We might need to do some replacements and we have to >> act quickly in order for new appointees to catch-up. It also depends on the >> expected workload and that is ongoing discussion. >> >> One way is to tweak the previous call for candidates and send it asap in >> order to get a good pool of candidates from where to select. >> please let me know your thoughts and suggestions. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Mar 27 17:04:08 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 15:04:08 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG representatives to EPDP team In-Reply-To: References:

<6d84d832-a099-4aeb-dfd8-f0e563d48da0@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Rafik, You are correct; I have given conflicting information. But I have been persuaded and will be staying on... Thanks, Ayden Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 15:47, Rafik Dammak wrote: > thanks Stephanie. > we are still missing Ayden and Julf confirmation. I thought Ayden expressed his intention to not continue previously but stated he was still thinking during Kobe meeting in PC session. > I would like to close this quickly and that we do call for candidates asap. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le mer. 27 mars 2019 ? 00:48, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : > >> Sorry, I thought I had confirmed. Yes, I am in for the next haul. >> >> Stephanie >> >> On 2019-03-26 00:11, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am resuming the discussion for this. First action will to finalize the confirmation with all members. >>> I only heard from Farzaneh, Milton, Amr that they will continue as rep and Tatiana and David as alternate.I assume Stephanie will continue. >>> I aiming to confirm by Friday so we can have fairly quick call to replace if needed. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> Le mar. 5 mars 2019 ? 08:17, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Keith communicated last week with all chairs of groups represented in EPDP team to confirm or replace their members there for phase 2. The same communication was shared with EPDP team. >>>> >>>> We are confirming with our NCSG representatives if they are willing to continue for phase 2. We might need to do some replacements and we have to act quickly in order for new appointees to catch-up. It also depends on the expected workload and that is ongoing discussion. >>>> >>>> One way is to tweak the previous call for candidates and send it asap in order to get a good pool of candidates from where to select. >>>> please let me know your thoughts and suggestions. >>>> >>>> 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 icann at ferdeline.com Wed Mar 27 23:09:44 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 21:09:44 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI - blog post: Technical Study Group Engages with Community in Kobe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We should probably get that some written feedback to them soon... Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 10:08 PM, Marika Konings wrote: > FYI: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/technical-study-group-engages-with-community-in-kobe > > Best regards, > > Caitlin, Berry and Marika > > Marika Konings > > Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: marika.konings at icann.org > > Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=Cg5uQf0yAfw-qlFZ0WNBfsLmmtBNUiH0SuI6Vg-gXBQ&e=) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=tT-E2RoAucUb3pfL9zmlbRdq1sytaEf765KOEkBVCjk&e=). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From elsa.saade at gmail.com Thu Mar 28 04:00:33 2019 From: elsa.saade at gmail.com (Elsa S) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 22:00:33 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI - blog post: Technical Study Group Engages with Community in Kobe In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hey Ayden, What kind of feedback do you envision? Something like a summary of our views expressed during constituency day for instance? Or more substance related feedback? E. ? On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 5:09 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > We should probably get that some written feedback to them soon... > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 10:08 PM, Marika Konings < > marika.konings at icann.org> wrote: > > FYI: > https://www.icann.org/news/blog/technical-study-group-engages-with-community-in-kobe > > > > Best regards, > > > > Caitlin, Berry and Marika > > > > *Marika Konings* > > *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation > for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * > > *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * > > > > *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* > > *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses > and > visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > . * > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- -- Elsa Saade Consultant Gulf Centre for Human Rights Twitter: @Elsa_Saade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Mar 28 10:20:47 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 08:20:47 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI - blog post: Technical Study Group Engages with Community in Kobe In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hi Elsa, That's a good question; thanks for asking it. I was thinking we should prepare a formal comment analyzing the Technical Study Group's proposed model, helping them separate any policy questions or assumptions that are embedded into their work from the technical ones that they're right to be exploring. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:00 AM, Elsa S wrote: > Hey Ayden, > > What kind of feedback do you envision? Something like a summary of our views expressed during constituency day for instance? Or more substance related feedback? > > E. > ? > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 5:09 PM Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> We should probably get that some written feedback to them soon... >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 10:08 PM, Marika Konings wrote: >> >>> FYI: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/technical-study-group-engages-with-community-in-kobe >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Caitlin, Berry and Marika >>> >>> Marika Konings >>> >>> Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> >>> Email: marika.konings at icann.org >>> >>> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO >>> >>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=Cg5uQf0yAfw-qlFZ0WNBfsLmmtBNUiH0SuI6Vg-gXBQ&e=) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=tT-E2RoAucUb3pfL9zmlbRdq1sytaEf765KOEkBVCjk&e=). >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > -- > > Elsa Saade > Consultant > Gulf Centre for Human Rights > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Mar 28 19:48:10 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:48:10 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Ext] RE: Request for Resolution of IFRT Issues In-Reply-To: <50067D3C-2B27-48B3-96FD-16F14DD21339@icann.org> References: <50067D3C-2B27-48B3-96FD-16F14DD21339@icann.org> Message-ID: <8adee0f8-6b03-cd98-419b-f1a742919f11@mail.utoronto.ca> How are we doing with this one, folks? cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: Request for Resolution of IFRT Issues Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:09:19 +0000 From: Trang Nguyen To: Austin, Donna , Katrina Sataki , Drazek, Keith , gbunton at tucows.com , harris at cabase.org.ar , wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de

, Brian at Winterfeldt.law , vsheckler at riaa.com , claudia.selli at att.com , bwanner at uscib.org , Stephanie Perrin , manal at tra.gov.eg , rod at rodrasmussen.com , fred at isc.org , Verd, Brad , maureen.hilyard at gmail.com , Byron Holland CC: David Conrad , Kim Davies , Bart Boswinkel , Marika Konings , Robert Hoggarth , Carlos Reyes , Heidi Ullrich , Steve Sheng , Chantelle Doerksen , Maryam Bakoshi , Amy Creamer , David Olive Dear Chairs, Co-Chairs, and Executive Committee, In our last communication with you prior to ICANN64, we informed you that the remaining issue with the composition of the review team is the non-ccNSO ccTLD seat, and that the Board was going to consider action relating to this issue at the Board's meeting in Kobe. We?d like to update you that the Board did not take action in Kobe on this issue to allow the community time to continue work on resolving the issue. We?d like to encourage your organizations to work toward identifying a resolution for this issue that is compliant with the Bylaws requirements so that the work of the review team can commence. ICANN org stands ready to assist the appointing organizations to accomplish this. Best, Trang From: Trang Nguyen Date: Monday, March 11, 2019 at 1:40 AM To: "Austin, Donna" , Katrina Sataki , "Drazek, Keith" , "gbunton at tucows.com" , "harris at cabase.org.ar" , "wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de"

, "Brian at Winterfeldt.law" , "vsheckler at riaa.com" , "claudia.selli at att.com" , "bwanner at uscib.org" , Stephanie Perrin , "manal at tra.gov.eg" , "rod at rodrasmussen.com" , "fred at isc.org" , "Verd, Brad" , "maureen.hilyard at gmail.com" , Byron Holland Cc: David Conrad , Kim Davies , Bart Boswinkel , Marika Konings , Robert Hoggarth , Carlos Reyes , Heidi Ullrich , Steve Sheng , Chantelle Doerksen , Maryam Bakoshi , Amy Creamer , David Olive Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: Request for Resolution of IFRT Issues Dear Chairs, Co-Chairs, and Executive Committee, We would like to update you on one of the previously open issues with the composition of the review team. We have been informed by the SSAC that the geographic region of its appointee is now APAC. The sole remaining issue is therefore, lack of a volunteer from a non-ccNSO ccTLD. As mentioned in our previous communication with you, ICANN org is seeking direction from the ICANN Board with regard to next steps. The Board will be considering this during its public Board meeting at ICANN64. Best, Trang From: Trang Nguyen Date: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 6:17 AM To: "Austin, Donna" , Katrina Sataki , "Drazek, Keith" , "gbunton at tucows.com" , "harris at cabase.org.ar" , "wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de"

, "Brian at Winterfeldt.law"