From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed May 8 08:42:54 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 14:42:54 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for NCSG alternate to EPDP team In-Reply-To: References:

<6d84d832-a099-4aeb-dfd8-f0e563d48da0@mail.utoronto.ca>

Message-ID: thanks Farell, as there was no objection. I will send the call for candidates today and let it open till next Tuesday. Best, Rafik Le lun. 29 avr. 2019 ? 15:53, Farell FOLLY a ?crit : > Dear Rafik, > > I am ok with that. > > @__f_f__ > > Best Regards > ____________________________________ > > (Ekue) Farell FOLLY > NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee > linkedin.com/in/farellf > > > > > > > On 17 Apr 2019, at 13:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > since the start of phase 2 is close we need to replace Collin as alternate. > here a draft call for candidates tweaked from the call we made in last > summer and adjust it to phase 2 > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NqqaDC0aSOgLCOFe4flKQ2MTA0hTbw8xgloFAzTauSw/edit > . > > As timeline, I think 1 week for a call and 3 days for selection is enough > since we only have one slot of fill. > please share your thoughts as we should start this process quickly and > have an alternate on time to be able to follow the discussions and be ready > to step up. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > De : Rafik Dammak > Date: lun. 1 avr. 2019 ? 15:05 > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] NCSG representatives to EPDP team > To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is > > > hi all > > for the replacement, I proposed before to tweak the previous call for > candidates to replace Collin and update with bits relevant to phase 2 but > also regarding expected knowledge of phase 1. if there is no objection, I > will share the draft call within this week so we can start a short call by > next week. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 29 mars 2019 ? 19:09, Ars?ne Tungali a > ?crit : > >> Thanks, everyone for willing to continue, I believe this is good for >> us that you are willling to continue representing us throughout phase >> 2. >> >> I am sure we will be able to have a replacement for Collin whom I >> would like to thank for being there during phase 1 as an alternate. >> >> 2019-03-29 2:04 UTC+02:00, Rafik Dammak : >> > Hi, >> > >> > all current EPDP representatives confirmed they will continue for phase >> 2 >> > and Tatiana and David as alternates. >> > we only have to replace Collin as alternate. >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Rafik >> > Le mer. 27 mars 2019 ? 23:47, Rafik Dammak a >> > ?crit : >> > >> >> 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 >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------ >> **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 >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing 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 Wed May 8 11:11:27 2019 From: dave at davecake.net (David Cake) Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 16:11:27 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for NCSG alternate to EPDP team In-Reply-To: References:

<6d84d832-a099-4aeb-dfd8-f0e563d48da0@mail.utoronto.ca>

Message-ID: Looks good to me. David > On 17 Apr 2019, at 7:28 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > since the start of phase 2 is close we need to replace Collin as alternate. > here a draft call for candidates tweaked from the call we made in last summer and adjust it to phase 2 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NqqaDC0aSOgLCOFe4flKQ2MTA0hTbw8xgloFAzTauSw/edit . > > As timeline, I think 1 week for a call and 3 days for selection is enough since we only have one slot of fill. > please share your thoughts as we should start this process quickly and have an alternate on time to be able to follow the discussions and be ready to step up. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > De : Rafik Dammak > > Date: lun. 1 avr. 2019 ? 15:05 > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] NCSG representatives to EPDP team > To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is

> > > > hi all > > for the replacement, I proposed before to tweak the previous call for candidates to replace Collin and update with bits relevant to phase 2 but also regarding expected knowledge of phase 1. if there is no objection, I will share the draft call within this week so we can start a short call by next week. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le ven. 29 mars 2019 ? 19:09, Ars?ne Tungali > a ?crit : > Thanks, everyone for willing to continue, I believe this is good for > us that you are willling to continue representing us throughout phase > 2. > > I am sure we will be able to have a replacement for Collin whom I > would like to thank for being there during phase 1 as an alternate. > > 2019-03-29 2:04 UTC+02:00, Rafik Dammak >: > > Hi, > > > > all current EPDP representatives confirmed they will continue for phase 2 > > and Tatiana and David as alternates. > > we only have to replace Collin as alternate. > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > Le mer. 27 mars 2019 ? 23:47, Rafik Dammak > a > > ?crit : > > > >> 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 > >>> > >> > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > **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 > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon May 13 02:14:03 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 08:14:03 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call 14th May In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hi all, I am sharing here the NCSG Policy call draft agenda scheduled in Tuesday 14th May. For council agenda, we don't have motion to vote (except confirmations in consent agenda) but several discussion topics. It is quire crammed and it is unlikely that all topics will covered enough. We will continue the discussion about the IGO-INGO next steps, but there is no rush for this one. We will have ICANN staff coming for IRTP status report and review and about the legislative/regulatory report. Brian Cute will be also there about the Evolution of Multistakeholder model. 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/agenda-council-16may19-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 stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon May 13 16:40:57 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 13:40:57 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Topic Proposals for ICANN65 Marrakech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can we get some feedback on this tomorrow folks? I have not weighed in on this (sorry) and I guess we still can. cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Topic Proposals for ICANN65 Marrakech Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 17:27:25 -1000 From: Maureen Hilyard To: Tanzanica S. King CC: SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning

Sorry Im late, Tanzanica The 4 options chosen by At-Large at their meeting on Thursday were: 1. DOH 2. Future of Multistakeholder Model of Governance 3. UA 4. Combined EPDP2, GDPR, Who is accuracy and Unified Access Model With 5. Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations as its spare option. Maureen On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 4:57 PM Tanzanica S. King > wrote: Hi All: While the recommendations from At-large are still forthcoming, we do need to finalize the topics for Marrakech ASAP. I want to share an update on the proposed topics based on your submissions to the voting form and discussions on the list. Review forms were submitted by ccNSO, GAC, and three from the GNSO for a total of five. The reviews were helpful, but not entirely conclusive due to consolidated session proposals made after the form went out. When it comes to the number of topics that should be selected to run at the meeting, the submissions are 50/50 between four and five topics with one group (GAC) having no preference. For the question on which topics should be unconflicted, the ccNSO selected none, but others indicated that all of their preferred topics should be scheduled in sessions with no conflicts. Please see the details below and proposed times for scheduling. This is done purely in an attempt to help move things along. I look forward to your comments and any suggested changes. Best regards, Tanzanica Future of the Multistakeholder Model of Governance (HIT) Support: ccNSO, GAC, GNSO 2/3 Propose Monday, Block 4 DNS over HTTPS (DoH) (HIT) Support: ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO 1/3 Propose Tuesday, Block 4 Impact of GDPR and EPDP Phase 1 recommendations on existing policies and procedures (CCT) Consolidated session (proposed by GNSO) : Across Field Address Validation - WHOIS Accuracy (RAA); ICANN - Combating domain abuse with GDPR; Privacy and Proxy Implementation Consolidates topics with multiple votes Propose Tuesday, Block 5 EPDP Phase 2 (HIT); Unified Access Model: complying with GDPR while meeting the needs of those with legitimate interests (CCT) Consolidated session proposed by GAC EPDP/UAM noted as untimely - defer to Montreal by GNSO UAM supported by ccNSO, GAC, IPC Policy around Universal Acceptance and steps to be taken by TLD operators/registrars, software developers and hosting companies (CCT) Support: ccNSO, GNSO 2/3 Propose Thursday, Block 4 Enhance effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations and their implementation (HIT) Support: ccNSO, GNSO 2/3 Propose Thursday, Block 5 Abuse Mitigation Consolidated Session (proposed by GAC): DNS over HTTPS (DoH) (HIT); ICANN - Combatting Domain Abuse with GDPR DoH to be scheduled separately Combatting Domain Abuse w/ GDPR included in consolidated session above (Impact of GDPR . . ) Community Engagement Session with the Second Security, Stability, & Resiliency Review Team (SSR2) Pre-Meeting Webinar Community Engagement Session with the Third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Pre-Meeting Webinar NomCom Review Implementation Working Group Pre-Meeting Webinar _______________________________________________ Tanzanica S. King Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design ICANN Office +1 310 301 5800 Mobile +1 310 995 3038 www.icann.org From: SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning > on behalf of Jonathan Robinson > Organization: Afilias Reply-To: "jrobinson at afilias.info" > Date: Thursday , 9 May 2019 at 02:09 To: 'Maureen Hilyard' > Cc: SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning > Subject: Re: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Topic Proposals for ICANN65 Marrakech Thank-you for clarifying Maureen, Apologies, I misread your email below to imply that there was a ?Meeting Planning? meeting for this group in a few hours. Jonathan From: Maureen Hilyard [mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 10:05 AM To: jrobinson at afilias.info Cc: Katrina Sataki >; SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning > Subject: Re: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Topic Proposals for ICANN65 Marrakech Hi Jonathan Are you referring to our CPWG? this is our Consolidated Policy Working group where our At-Large members discuss policy issues, and the HIT topics are on the agenda for discussionat their meeting in a few hours. Unfortunately it will be 3 am for me and I started my day with a 4am meeting with Auction Proceeds and had a busy day from then on, so I am giving my apologies to the policy team but they will send me their decision after their meeting. Hope this clarifies things in relation to At-Large. Maureen On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 10:41 PM Jonathan Robinson > wrote: All, Thanks to Katrina & Rod for thoughtful and detailed input. That certainly gives me better insight as to the balancing that needs to be undertaken here. Please could someone confirm the meeting mentioned by Maureen below. I have no details at this stage. Thank-you. Jonathan From: Maureen Hilyard [mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 9:24 AM To: Katrina Sataki > Cc: SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning > Subject: Re: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Topic Proposals for ICANN65 Marrakech Hi Katrina and all Just a quick note. Although At-Large proposes to formalise a list for recommending to this group after their meeting in a few hours time, I have to add here that the topic that has gained the most interest from CPWG participants has been DoH. The team also liked the consolidated approach for some of the items Keith suggested and they will get back to me about the final list to submit to this group after their meeting. But as part of this discussion, I just wanted to add At-Large support for DoH being a separate HIT topic. Maureen On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 8:27 PM Katrina Sataki > wrote: Dear All, I would like to start by thanking Manal, Keith and Jonathan for taking the discussion on the CC/HIT sessions further. I?ll start by addressing some of the points raised in their emails and then I would like to talk about the way forward. 1. Combining similar topics is a wise thing to do; therefore, I would support such attempts. However, I would not combine DoH with Combatting Domain Abuse with GDPR. More on DoH below. 2. I fully trust Keith?s considerations regarding the EPDP Phase 2. If Keith believes it is better to defer the session to Montreal, I support the suggestion. 3. I understand Jonathan?s worries about different groups meeting with different constituencies presenting more or less the same thing. I also understand why there might be a wish to have one session inviting all constituencies together ? it would clearly save time and efforts. However, I have to note that those people who ask questions when we have meetings in the ccNSO room most likely will never ask questions in a bigger hall. As far as I can tell, discussions in bigger halls are dominated by native English speakers. At the ccNSO, native English speakers are in overwhelming minority :) ; therefore, people are less shy to speak up in such environment. That?s the main reason why I would not support one session for all. These sessions may seem duplicative but they help people to get involved. I am sure we can identify many other duplicative efforts at ICANN and I promise to be the first in line to reduce them. Therefore, I also support the need to continue discussions on the future of Multistakeholder governance model. 4. We received the proposal to have another session on UA when we asked our community to suggest interesting topics. However, if there are other topics that seem more interesting to a broader community, we are open. Now a little bit about the future? It might seem unbelievable, but to date we still have not come up with a clear process that we would follow, with dates and milestones that we all would adhere to. We, as a group, are collectively responsible to the broader community. We expect people to travel to Marrakesh or any other place, to attend ICANN meetings in person, to participate and contribute. The least we can do is to ensure solid, interesting agenda for the meeting, and let them know the agenda well in advance to ensure they can make informed decision about their travel arrangements. We should spend a lot of time and efforts to prepare the sessions of common interest to make sure they are engaging and valuable. With ICANN65 starting in a little over 6 weeks, we need all the time we have to organise solid and interesting sessions. As some of you may remember from previous discussions, the ccNSO has always supported the view that topics need to be of high interest to as broad a group as possible, including ? but not limited to - the ccTLD community. However, we are also of the view that if the majority of SO/ACs decides on a topic for a session, those of us with no particular interest in that topic, should be able to organise a session in parallel as long as they do not target the same audience. As an example: since 2009, the ccNSO Tech WG organizes Tech Day usually on the Monday of an ICANN meeting. The focus of the Tech Day session is on technical, operational and security issues TLD operators are facing. It attracts well over 120 people at every ICANN meeting and the audience is steadily growing. Organizing a HIT/CC session with a similar focus (it has happened in the past) in parallel with Tech Day is probably not the most optimal thing to do. At the same time organizing a session focused on, for instance, EPDP phase 2/Uniform Access Model or future of MS model would reduce conflicts. In light of the above, and to break the deadlock we find ourselves in, the ccNSO and SSAC intend to move forward with the session on DoH. We are now planning to organise it on Tuesday afternoon either as a HIT/CC session or, if there is no interest from other communities, as a joint ccNSO-SSAC session in the ccNSO meeting room, which is open to everyone anyway. Kind regards, ]{atrina From: SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning [mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2019 10:35 AM To: Joan Kerr >; Bruna Martins dos Santos > Cc: soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org Subject: Re: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Topic Proposals for ICANN65 Marrakech Thanks everyone for this useful exchange and apologies for my delayed response (got distracted by the Board meetings) and for missing the last call .. Allow me to share the GAC?s thinking on this .. We have worked on prioritizing the whole list of topics and have submitted it as such for 2 reasons .. First, I was not sure how to reflect mergers in our choices on the form, and second, for GAC leadership to be guided by the full list of priorities during our discussions .. Yet, we agree that SSR2, ATRT3 and NomCom could be dealt with through webinars and we fully support mergers .. We have particularly thought of the following mergers: * Topics 6 (EPDP Phase 2, by IPC) and Topic 12 (UAM compliance with GDPR, by GAC) * Topics 4 (DNS over HTTPS) and Topic 8 (Combatting Domain Abuse with GDPR) under the theme of Abuse Mitigation Finally, I would like to note that so far we have availed all afternoons for HIT/CC sessions except for the Wed., being allocated to GAC communique drafting .. So we hope that topics of interest to the GAC are not scheduled against the communique drafting (ideally before to allow reflecting on them in the communique, if at all possible) .. Hope you find this useful .. Kind Regards --Manal From: SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning [mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Joan Kerr Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 4:48 PM To: Bruna Martins dos Santos Cc: soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org Subject: Re: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Topic Proposals for ICANN65 Marrakech Hi All, I definitely agree that we need to stop the fragmentation and siloed approaches and start to share community resources. Regards, On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 10:18 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos > wrote: +1 to Stephanie's point on improved spaces for MS approaches/interactions with regards to CC subjects. Le mer. 17 avr. 2019 ? 17:24, Maureen Hilyard > a ?crit : I agree with you Stephanie about our encouraging more efficient MS approaches when addressing cross-community issues. As you say, a more collective approach would help the wider ICANN community to understand and appreciate each others views and perspectives - a governance proposal for Brian perhaps. On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:00 AM Stephanie Perrin > wrote: I agree, we were rather plagued by duplication at Kobe. I am guilty as I did not act fast enough to prevent it in our SG among the constituencies, but it seemed to be a common phenomenon. The same thing happened with the TSG group, they briefed every group and their dogs, and it would have been more sensible to have one common session. Makes for much better MS appreciation of one another's views, which ought to be a policy goal rather than supporting a fragmented, siloed approach. Hard to do this, but we should keep trying for these logical solutions. Stephanie Perrin On 2019-04-17 04:58, Jonathan Robinson wrote: All, One point on meeting organisation that I was particularly aware of in Kobe was duplication. I was interested in and tracking the ICANN Budget process and so attended the relevant ccNSO session, GNSO session and cross-community session. Not only was there significant or total duplication of the content across the sessions but the Cross-C session was very poorly attended. So much so that it was effectively the ICANN finance team and (IIRC) myself and one other individual actively engaged with them. There was clearly inefficiency in this as well as the creation of parallel sessions (a commonly voiced community concern); more than otherwise may have been required. With this background, I understand that there is a proposal from the ATRT3 chairs to meet with various groups in Marrakech. Moreover, that my group (the RySG) is not meeting together as a group for any length of time (in order to enable RySG members to participate elsewhere) and so will not be able to meet with ATRT3. Given the goals of the ATRT3 group in Marrakech are as follows: - Socialize our terms of reference and scope; - Conduct investigation of identified objectives - Seek input from the community to help us shape our findings and draft recommendations. My proposal here and to this group is that ATRT3 hold a community-wide engagement and feedback session within a 90 minute slot. I trust that you will find this logical and sensible use of community resources. Thank-you, Jonathan From: Tanzanica S. King [mailto:tanzanica.king at icann.org] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 8:53 PM To: SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning

Subject: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Topic Proposals for ICANN65 Marrakech Dear Community Leaders: Several important issues were raised during the ICANN65 Kickoff in Kobe, and it?s been good to see discussions continue on the mailing list after the meeting. So far, the suggested topics for cross-community or high-interest sessions in Marrakech are as follows: 1. Policy around Universal Acceptance and steps to be taken by TLD operators/registrars, software developers and hosting companies 2. DNS over HTTPS (DoH) ? hot subject for many stakeholders: TLDs, users, governments, lawyers, ISPs, etc. 3. Nominating Committee Review 4. Evolution of ICANN Multi-stakeholder model of Governance 5. Hijacking / Account Take-Over / Attacks To move us forward in the selection of topics, the ICANN65 Topic Proposal Form [icann.wufoo.com] is now open for submissions. Before completing a form, please continue to share all proposed topics with the group to avoid duplicate submissions. ICANN65 Topic Proposal Form [icann.wufoo.com] Submission Deadline: 19 April 2019 The group also suggested that we reduce the number of CC/HIT slots to allow more time for progressing policy work, with an understanding that the final slots will be based on necessity and prioritization of topics. This approach aligns perfectly with the intentions of the block schedule. However, for schedule development, it may be helpful to know which of the seven slots is most likely to be freed up. Given the CC/HIT slots on Monday and Wednesday conflict with Tech Day and the GAC Communiqu?, can we assume these would be the first to drop off? Again, even if not final, this guidance will help support schedule planning for your groups. Best, Tanzanica _______________________________________________ Tanzanica S. King Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design ICANN Office +1 310 301 5800 Mobile +1 310 995 3038 www.icann.org [icann.org] _______________________________________________ SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning _______________________________________________ SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning _______________________________________________ SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning -- Bruna Martins dos Santos Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins _______________________________________________ SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning -- Joan Kerr, Entrepreneur, Artist, Humanitarian _____________________________________ Chair, Climate Smart Victory Garden Team Chair, ICANN, Not for Profit Operations Constituency Chair, IEEE Sustainable Agriculture Working Group Chair, Science for Peace, Climate Smart Victory Gardens Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Canada UN WSIS Award Recipient, for Content & Creativity Durham Region Recipient, Community Partnership Award Founder, Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities www.joankerr.ca [joankerr.ca], www.fbsc.org [fbsc.org] Skype: joankerr_fbsc 1-416-907-0783 _______________________________________________ SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning _______________________________________________ SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue May 14 17:31:47 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 14:31:47 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <18ded185-ba11-abb6-6096-ab63ef91782e@mail.utoronto.ca> Too bad this did not show up in time to discuss at the policy committee meeting. Do we have any volunteers for penholder? cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 14:29:24 +0000 From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez

To: Stephanie Perrin CC: Tom Barrett , Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Zahid Jamil-IG (internet at jamilandjamil.com) , Lars Hoffmann , Maryam Bakoshi Dear Stephanie, We are contacting you in the capacity of Chair and Vice-Chairs of the NomCom Review Implementation Working Group (NomComRIWG). Following the ICANN Board?s acceptance of the Final Report and the Feasibility Assessment and Initial Implementation Plan, we have been tasked to oversee the implementation of the twenty-seven (27) recommendations issued by the independent examiner. Before implementation can begin, the Board has asked us to draft a Detailed Implementation Plan, due to be submitted to the Board?s Organizational Effectiveness Committee no later than 14 September 2019. While the NomComRIWG has the Board-mandated responsibility to plan the implementation of the twenty-seven recommendations, we would welcome any and all feedback either as a single document from the NCSG or from individual members of the NCSG. All feedback will inform our drafting of the Detailed Implementation Plan. We understand that you or the NCSG may not have the time to respond to all 27 recommendations, so we have identified seven where your input would be most helpful. Please, limit your response to the process you suggest we follow for each implementation rather than advocating for any specific outcome of the recommendation. We kindly ask you to provide us with your feedback no later than 10 June 2019. If you cannot respond by that time, but would like to provide input, please, let us know at your earliest convenience by when we can expect your feedback. If you have any questions or concerns, either about the list of questions, or about any other aspect of the NomCom Review implementation, please, do not hesitate to reach out to us or any of ICANN?s support staff at any time. Many thanks and best wishes, Tom Barrett, Chair NomComRIWG Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG Zahid Jamal, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG Cc: ALAC, ASO AC, ccNSO Council, GAC, GNSO Council, RSSAC, SSAC, NCSG, RrSG, RySG, BC, IPC, ISPCP, NCUC, NPOC, AFRALO, APRALO, EURALO, LACRALO, NARALO. 1. Recommendation 10: Representation on the NomCom should be re-balanced immediately and then be reviewed every five years. * What process, based on which principles, would you suggest for the implementation of this recommendation to rebalance the NomCom? And, what criteria should the overall allocation of all NomCom seats among the SO/ACs be based on? 1. Recommendation 14: Formalize communication between the NomCom and the Board, SOs/ACs, and the PTI Board in order to understand needed competencies and experience. * What process would you suggest to formalize the communication of the needed competencies and experiences of NomCom appointees to your SO/AC? 1. Recommendation 16: Implement and codify a system for providing feedback to the NomCom regarding the contributions and participation of members up for re-appointment by the NomCom (i.e. for the Board, PTI, GNSO, ALAC and ccNSO) * What process would you suggest to improve feedback to the NomCom regarding the contribution and participation of NomCom-appointees members that wish to apply for re-appointment by the NomCom? 1. Recommendation 24: An empowered body of current and former NomCom members should be formed to ensure greater continuity across NomComs, and in particular, to recommend and assist in implementing improvements to NomCom operations. * What process do you suggest should be put in place to help ensure cross-community consensus on developing the Charter and formation of this body? The Charter would address issues such as membership, term-limits, number and allocation of seats. 1. Recommendation 25: Improve NomCom selection decisions by assessing the performance and needs of all bodies receiving NomCom appointees. * What process would you suggest for your organization to inform and improve future NomCom appointments? 1. Recommendation 27: Provide clarity on desire for and definition of ?independent directors?. Upon clarification of desire and definition, determine the number of specific seats for ?independent directors?. ? What are your suggestions regarding the process of implementing of this recommendation? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat May 25 06:46:14 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 12:46:14 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps In-Reply-To: <431c83f2-07e3-20a4-8ae5-f9ad97f03d6e@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <431c83f2-07e3-20a4-8ae5-f9ad97f03d6e@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, thanks for sharing this. let's see if there are volunteers who want to participate in drafting . otherwise we will have to do within the PC. Reading the listed recommendations, we need input from former nomcom members as they are familiar with the internals and dynamics of nomcom. Best, Rafik Le ven. 24 mai 2019 ? 06:08, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > Hi Folks, > > I am forwarding this call for input on the planned implementation of the > NOMCOM Review recommendations. I suspect we will want to provide input, > and am ccing the Policy Committee to determine who will take the lead on > this. I have started a google document here > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q39L87eoUvgRGi_sGQAq30Q7Ss-iHC1IsnXqFZ4u34c/edit?usp=sharing > but if you have trouble with access to Google documents, please do not > hesitate to contact me with your input. > > Thanks! Deadline for our input is June 10, so I expect we will need to > finalize by the 5-6. > > Stephanie Perrin > > NCSG Chair > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps > Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 14:29:24 +0000 > From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez > > To: Stephanie Perrin > > CC: Tom Barrett , Cheryl > Langdon-Orr , Zahid Jamil-IG > (internet at jamilandjamil.com) > , Lars Hoffmann > , Maryam Bakoshi > > > Dear Stephanie, > > > > We are contacting you in the capacity of Chair and Vice-Chairs of the > NomCom Review Implementation Working Group (NomComRIWG). Following the > ICANN Board?s acceptance > > of the Final Report > > and the Feasibility Assessment and Initial Implementation Plan > , > we have been tasked to oversee the implementation of the twenty-seven (27) > recommendations issued by the independent examiner. > > > > Before implementation can begin, the Board has asked us to draft a > Detailed Implementation Plan, due to be submitted to the Board?s > Organizational Effectiveness Committee no later than 14 September 2019. > > > > While the NomComRIWG has the Board-mandated responsibility to plan the > implementation of the twenty-seven recommendations, we would welcome any > and all feedback either as a single document from the NCSG or from > individual members of the NCSG. All feedback will inform our drafting of > the Detailed Implementation Plan. We understand that you or the NCSG may > not have the time to respond to all 27 recommendations, so we have > identified seven where your input would be most helpful. > > > > Please, limit your response to the process you suggest we follow for each > implementation rather than advocating for any specific outcome of the > recommendation. > > > > *We kindly ask you to provide us with your feedback no later than 10 June > 2019*. If you cannot respond by that time, but would like to provide > input, please, let us know at your earliest convenience by when we can > expect your feedback. > > > > If you have any questions or concerns, either about the list of questions, > or about any other aspect of the NomCom Review implementation, please, do > not hesitate to reach out to us or any of ICANN?s support staff at any > time. > > > > Many thanks and best wishes, > > > > Tom Barrett, Chair NomComRIWG > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG > > Zahid Jamal, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG > > > > > > Cc: ALAC, ASO AC, ccNSO Council, GAC, GNSO Council, RSSAC, SSAC, NCSG, > RrSG, RySG, BC, IPC, ISPCP, NCUC, NPOC, AFRALO, APRALO, EURALO, LACRALO, > NARALO. > > > > 1. *Recommendation 10*: Representation on the NomCom should be > re-balanced immediately and then be reviewed every five years. > > > > - What process, based on which principles, would you suggest for the > implementation of this recommendation to rebalance the NomCom? And, > what criteria should the overall allocation of all NomCom seats among the > SO/ACs be based on? > > > > 1. *Recommendation 14*: Formalize communication between the NomCom and > the Board, SOs/ACs, and the PTI Board in order to understand needed > competencies and experience. > > > > - What process would you suggest to formalize the communication of the > needed competencies and experiences of NomCom appointees to your SO/AC? > > > > 1. *Recommendation 16*: Implement and codify a system for providing > feedback to the NomCom regarding the contributions and participation of > members up for re-appointment by the NomCom (i.e. for the Board, PTI, GNSO, > ALAC and ccNSO) > > > > - What process would you suggest to improve feedback to the NomCom > regarding the contribution and participation of NomCom-appointees members that > wish to apply for re-appointment by the NomCom? > > > > 1. *Recommendation 24*: An empowered body of current and former NomCom > members should be formed to ensure greater continuity across NomComs, and > in particular, to recommend and assist in implementing improvements to > NomCom operations. > > > > - What process do you suggest should be put in place to help ensure > cross-community consensus on developing the Charter and formation of this > body? The Charter would address issues such as membership, term-limits, > number and allocation of seats. > > > > 1. *Recommendation 25*: Improve NomCom selection decisions by > assessing the performance and needs of all bodies receiving NomCom > appointees. > > > > - What process would you suggest for your organization to inform and > improve future NomCom appointments? > > > > 1. *Recommendation 27*: Provide clarity on desire for and definition > of ?independent directors?. Upon clarification of desire and definition, > determine the number of specific seats for ?independent directors?. > > > > ? What are your suggestions regarding the process of implementing > of this recommendation? > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: