From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Sep 10 19:54:27 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:54:27 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] Reminder: For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RE: This recommendation: The GNSO should initiate a new Policy Development Process (PDP) to create a consistent privacy baseline across all registries Do we support this response? The GNSO Council does not intend to initiate a new PDP as recommended (see rationale). The Council will seek feedback from the EPDP Team as to whether this Recommendation #10 has been or is being addressed in whole or in part by the EPDP. Offered rationale: This recommendation seems to have been overtaken by events such the GDPR and the EPDP. The Council is of the view that a PDP ?to create a consistent privacy baseline across all registries? is not within the ?picket fence? or ICANN?s mission. All gTLD registry operators are subject to applicable laws and regulations as well as ICANN?s consensus policies. gTLD registry operators around the globe process a wide and differing range of data (including WHOIS data). While their processing of WHOIS data is subject to ICANN contracts and consensus policies, it is up to each registry operator to set their own privacy policy that governs their processing of such data and ensures compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Best wishes, Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 16:19, Nathalie Peregrine wrote: > Dear councilors, > > A reminder that the closing date for input on the initial draft of the proposed GNSO Council response to CCT-RT Recommendations is this coming Friday, 13 September 2019. > > Kind regards, > > Nathalie > > From: council on behalf of PAMELALITTLE > Reply-To: PAMELALITTLE > Date: Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:45 AM > To: "council at gnso.icann.org" , Flip Petillion > Cc: "carlosraulg at gmail.com" > Subject: Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO > > Hi Flip - Thank you for taking the time to review the draft. > > Dear Councilors, > > This item was on 22 August Council meeting agenda but was deferred to our next monthly meeting on 19 September. > > There are 5 recommendations under consideration and the small team's proposed response is as follows: > > #10 (initiating a PDP to create a privacy baseline across all registries) - No action at this time > > #16 (abuse and Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR)) - Redirect to ICANN org > > #27 & #28 - Refer to the RPM WG > > #29 be - Refer to Sub-pro WG > > It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a moment to review the draft (attached again) and, if appropriate, seek input from your respective group by 13 September 2019. It would hopefully make our discussion during the Council meeting more efficient. > > Kind regards, > > Pam > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Sender:Flip Petillion >> >> Sent At:2019 Aug. 20 (Tue.) 16:47 >> >> Recipient:PAMELALITTLE ; council at gnso.icann.org ; council >> >> Cc:"Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." >> >> Subject:Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >> >> Thank you Pam >> >> I have no comments. >> Best regards, >> >> Flip >> >> Flip Petillion >> >> fpetillion at petillion.law >> >> +32484652653 >> >> www.petillion.law >> >> [signature_1247444843][petillion.law](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=zHzLY9RS9U0fN-nqSv6KEzaXJtF2lHiOk0Ok7kstWbM&e=) >> >> Attorneys ? Advocaten - Avocats >> >> From: council on behalf of Pam Little >> Reply to: Pam Little >> Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 02:42 >> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" , council >> Cc: "Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." >> Subject: Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >> >> Dear Councilors, >> >> The small team would like to suggest some changes to the draft that was sent to the Council list late July: >> >> #16 on DAAR and DNS abuse - In light of the on-going conversations within the ICANN community, including a Plenary session on DNS Abuse to be held at ICANN66, we've made some suggested edits to the proposed Council response and new language to reflect this. >> >> #28 on cost-benefit analysis of TMCH - Staff recently clarified that the RPM WG did not carry out a cost-benefit analysis. While this was one of the specific Charter questions, Analysis Group's Final Report indicates that their data did not provide quantifiable information to include such analysis in its review. In light of this, we are suggesting a change to the proposed Council response: >> >> From: The GNSO Council will seek feedback/comment from the RPM WG whether its Phase 1 work has carried out a cost-benefit analysis consistent with the scope described in this Recommendation #28. >> >> To: The GNSO Council will refer this recommendation to the RPM WG. >> >> A redline version is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. We look forward to discussing this further at the upcoming Council meeting later this week. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Pam >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Sender:PAMELALITTLE >> >> Sent At:2019 Jul. 23 (Tue.) 16:31 >> >> Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org ; council >> >> Cc:"Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." ; Carlos Raul Gutierrez ; Michele Neylon - Blacknight >> >> Subject:For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >> >> Dear Councilors, >> >> You may recall that the Council discussed this topic during the wrap-up session in Marrakesh and the action item was for a small team (Carlos, Michele and myself) to take a look at the 5 Recommendations that were passed through to GNSO (see the message below from Larisa Gurnick forwarded by Mary to Council). >> >> In addition, a number of Recommendations were passed through to gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and/or Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP Working Group. In order to have a better picture of where all the Recommendations passed to the GNSO and its PDPs stand, Keith is planning to write to the leadership of the Working Groups seeking their feedback. >> >> In the meantime, I attach an initial draft with the small team's proposed GNSO Council response to those 5 Recommendations passed through directly to the GNSO for your review and consideration. It is likely to be included in our August Council meeting agenda so please take some time to consider the proposed responses before the meeting. All feedback/comments/suggested edits are welcome! >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Pam >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Sender:Mary Wong >> >> Sent At:2019 Jun. 10 (Mon.) 16:43 >> >> Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org >> >> Subject:[council] Message regarding CCT-RT recommendations >> >> Dear Councilors, >> >> I am forwarding the message below on behalf of Larisa Gurnick, Vice-President in ICANN?s Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department. You may recall that the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust Review Team?s (CCT-RT) final recommendations included several that were directed at the GNSO Council. This notification should provide you with additional information and context for the ICANN Board?s action in respect of those recommendations. >> >> Dear Members of the GNSO Council, >> >> The purpose of this note is to highlight the Board resolution passed on 1 March 2019 - see [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D03-2D01-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=d653AEmkPoU5I6YTgKVksELfQQX3Pv9KlOR-qZCykbo&e=) - that calls for a set of Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Final Recommendations to be passed through to community groups. As articulated in the Board resolution, ?recognizing that the Board has the obligation and responsibility to balance the work of ICANN in order to preserve the ability for ICANN org to serve its Mission and the public interest, the Board decided on three categories of action?: >> >> - Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation considerations; >> >> - Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status, directing ICANN org to perform specific actions to enable the Board to take further actions; >> >> - Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups the CCT-RT identified for their consideration. The Board noted fourteen such recommendations (9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35). >> >> We invite you to refer to pages 1-4 of the scorecard [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_resolutions-2Dfinal-2Dcct-2Drecs-2Dscorecard-2D01mar19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=WHL6AQ0pPSwroWvDA9W4TTMRwnPc7hzcwmmrtiU346o&e=) which compile pass-through recommendations, including the groups they are addressed to. >> >> Accordingly, ICANN org wishes to notify you of the recommendations the ICANN Board resolved to pass through to you, in whole or in part, for your consideration: >> >> - Recommendation 10. >> >> - Recommendation 16 (in part) Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, Registries Stakeholder Group, Registrar Stakeholder Group, Generic Names Supporting Organization, Second Security, Stability & Resiliency of DNS Review Team as suggested by the CCT-RT. In the scorecard, the Board noted that ?it is not accepting the policy directives that may be inherent here but rather, passes on such elements of the recommendation to the relevant community groups to consider?. >> >> - Recommendation 27. >> >> - Recommendation 28. >> >> - Recommendation 29. Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, as suggested by the CCT-RT. To inform work relating to recommendations 29 and 30, the ICANN Board suggested that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take on, ?should they choose to do so, defining the term ?Global South? or agreeing on another term to describe underserved or underrepresented regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN org?. >> >> We would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: ?in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting, nor rejecting the recommendations. [?] Passing recommendations through to community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on and the topics that the group will address?. >> >> As indicated in the resolution, the Board encourages community groups to be ?mindful of any interdependencies with ongoing work and discussions?. Additionally,the Board suggests ?to the referenced community groups that the CCT-RT's proposed priority levels be taken into account as the groups decide whether, how and when to address the CCT-RT recommendations that are being passed through [?]?. >> >> Additionally, we would like to flag the Board suggestion that for transparency purposes, ?it would be helpful to have records or reporting made available to the ICANN community on how the community group considered the items coming out of the CCT-RT. The Board encourages any level of reporting that the groups are able to provide as the ICANN org and Board track action on the CCT-RT's recommendations?. Please consider providing updates on your progress in addressing (as appropriate) these recommendations, to be included with ICANN org?s reporting. >> >> Background >> >> The Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) released its Final Report on 8 September 2018 ? see [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Dfinal-2D08sep18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=6ICcKJIDUbDCBJXyA3WEljVWYV3q2Y17bqm9MhfIdiE&e=). The CCT-RT Final Report contains 35 recommendations and is the culmination of nearly three years of work, reviewing how the expansion of top-level domain names impacted competition, consumer trust and choice. For more information on the CCT Review and Specific Reviews, please read [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article4.6 [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_governance_bylaws-2Den-23article4.6&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=sk_R5n9lFzK-VjJ5MajW0gufBPKP-hHHtxwwm9affK4&e=). >> >> The ICANN Board took action on each of the 35 recommendations produced by the CCT-RT - see [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D03-2D01-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=d653AEmkPoU5I6YTgKVksELfQQX3Pv9KlOR-qZCykbo&e=) - on 1 March 2019 and was informed by public comment input received on the Final report (see [https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-final-recs-2018-10-08-en [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_cct-2Dfinal-2Drecs-2D2018-2D10-2D08-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=rnlQOqTJ0L8ars1j7DT1jgHvcY51YUlkAEoXnRf7NsE&e=)). >> >> The Board?s decisions on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_resolutions-2Dfinal-2Dcct-2Drecs-2Dscorecard-2D01mar19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=WHL6AQ0pPSwroWvDA9W4TTMRwnPc7hzcwmmrtiU346o&e=). A blog post on the Board action can be found at [https://www.icann.org/news/blog/board-action-on-competition-consumer-trust-and-consumer-choice-review [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog_board-2Daction-2Don-2Dcompetition-2Dconsumer-2Dtrust-2Dand-2Dconsumer-2Dchoice-2Dreview&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=tPbh87sl7effhOUw5FF9BkBI7x6y32Z1v4ucSL93tCg&e=) for more context. >> >> We thank you for your collaboration in considering the CCT-RT output. Please let us know whether you have any questions. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Best regards. >> >> Larisa Gurnick >> >> Vice-President, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives, ICANN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 7394 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT Review Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO_revised_15August2019.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 171097 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca Wed Sep 11 04:12:39 2019 From: stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:12:39 -0700 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] Reminder: For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <31BAA7EC-D818-4077-BB58-BBF9A5230806@digitaldiscretion.ca> No. Steph Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 10, 2019, at 09:54, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > RE: This recommendation: > > The GNSO should initiate a new Policy Development Process (PDP) to create a consistent privacy baseline across all registries > > Do we support this response? > > The GNSO Council does not intend to initiate a new PDP as recommended (see rationale). The Council will seek feedback from the EPDP Team as to whether this Recommendation #10 has been or is being addressed in whole or in part by the EPDP. > > Offered rationale: > > This recommendation seems to have been overtaken by events such the GDPR and the EPDP. > > The Council is of the view that a PDP ?to create a consistent privacy baseline across all registries? is not within the ?picket fence? or ICANN?s mission. > > All gTLD registry operators are subject to applicable laws and regulations as well as ICANN?s consensus policies. > > gTLD registry operators around the globe process a wide and differing range of data (including WHOIS data). While their processing of WHOIS data is subject to ICANN contracts and consensus policies, it is up to each registry operator to set their own privacy policy that governs their processing of such data and ensures compliance with applicable laws and regulations. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 16:19, Nathalie Peregrine wrote: >> >> Dear councilors, >> >> >> >> A reminder that the closing date for input on the initial draft of the proposed GNSO Council response to CCT-RT Recommendations is this coming Friday, 13 September 2019. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> Nathalie >> >> >> >> From: council on behalf of PAMELALITTLE >> Reply-To: PAMELALITTLE >> Date: Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:45 AM >> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" , Flip Petillion >> Cc: "carlosraulg at gmail.com" >> Subject: Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >> >> >> >> Hi Flip - Thank you for taking the time to review the draft. >> >> >> >> Dear Councilors, >> >> >> >> This item was on 22 August Council meeting agenda but was deferred to our next monthly meeting on 19 September. >> >> >> >> There are 5 recommendations under consideration and the small team's proposed response is as follows: >> >> >> >> #10 (initiating a PDP to create a privacy baseline across all registries) - No action at this time >> >> #16 (abuse and Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR)) - Redirect to ICANN org >> >> #27 & #28 - Refer to the RPM WG >> >> #29 be - Refer to Sub-pro WG >> >> >> >> It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a moment to review the draft (attached again) and, if appropriate, seek input from your respective group by 13 September 2019. It would hopefully make our discussion during the Council meeting more efficient. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> Pam >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Sender:Flip Petillion >> >> Sent At:2019 Aug. 20 (Tue.) 16:47 >> >> Recipient:PAMELALITTLE ; council at gnso.icann.org ; council >> >> Cc:"Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." >> >> Subject:Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >> >> >> >> Thank you Pam >> >> I have no comments. >> Best regards, >> >> Flip >> >> >> >> Flip Petillion >> >> fpetillion at petillion.law >> >> +32484652653 >> >> www.petillion.law >> >> >> >> [petillion.law] >> >> >> >> Attorneys ? Advocaten - Avocats >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: council on behalf of Pam Little >> Reply to: Pam Little >> Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 02:42 >> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" , council >> Cc: "Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." >> Subject: Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >> >> >> >> Dear Councilors, >> >> >> >> The small team would like to suggest some changes to the draft that was sent to the Council list late July: >> >> >> >> #16 on DAAR and DNS abuse - In light of the on-going conversations within the ICANN community, including a Plenary session on DNS Abuse to be held at ICANN66, we've made some suggested edits to the proposed Council response and new language to reflect this. >> >> >> >> #28 on cost-benefit analysis of TMCH - Staff recently clarified that the RPM WG did not carry out a cost-benefit analysis. While this was one of the specific Charter questions, Analysis Group's Final Report indicates that their data did not provide quantifiable information to include such analysis in its review. In light of this, we are suggesting a change to the proposed Council response: >> >> >> >> From: The GNSO Council will seek feedback/comment from the RPM WG whether its Phase 1 work has carried out a cost-benefit analysis consistent with the scope described in this Recommendation #28. >> >> >> >> To: The GNSO Council will refer this recommendation to the RPM WG. >> >> >> >> A redline version is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. We look forward to discussing this further at the upcoming Council meeting later this week. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> Pam >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Sender:PAMELALITTLE >> >> Sent At:2019 Jul. 23 (Tue.) 16:31 >> >> Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org ; council >> >> Cc:"Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." ; Carlos Raul Gutierrez ; Michele Neylon - Blacknight >> >> Subject:For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >> >> >> >> Dear Councilors, >> >> >> >> You may recall that the Council discussed this topic during the wrap-up session in Marrakesh and the action item was for a small team (Carlos, Michele and myself) to take a look at the 5 Recommendations that were passed through to GNSO (see the message below from Larisa Gurnick forwarded by Mary to Council). >> >> >> >> In addition, a number of Recommendations were passed through to gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and/or Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP Working Group. In order to have a better picture of where all the Recommendations passed to the GNSO and its PDPs stand, Keith is planning to write to the leadership of the Working Groups seeking their feedback. >> >> >> >> In the meantime, I attach an initial draft with the small team's proposed GNSO Council response to those 5 Recommendations passed through directly to the GNSO for your review and consideration. It is likely to be included in our August Council meeting agenda so please take some time to consider the proposed responses before the meeting. All feedback/comments/suggested edits are welcome! >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> Pam >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Sender:Mary Wong >> >> Sent At:2019 Jun. 10 (Mon.) 16:43 >> >> Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org >> >> Subject:[council] Message regarding CCT-RT recommendations >> >> >> >> Dear Councilors, >> >> >> >> I am forwarding the message below on behalf of Larisa Gurnick, Vice-President in ICANN?s Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department. You may recall that the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust Review Team?s (CCT-RT) final recommendations included several that were directed at the GNSO Council. This notification should provide you with additional information and context for the ICANN Board?s action in respect of those recommendations. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Members of the GNSO Council, >> >> >> >> The purpose of this note is to highlight the Board resolution passed on 1 March 2019 - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org] - that calls for a set of Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Final Recommendations to be passed through to community groups. As articulated in the Board resolution, ?recognizing that the Board has the obligation and responsibility to balance the work of ICANN in order to preserve the ability for ICANN org to serve its Mission and the public interest, the Board decided on three categories of action?: >> >> Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation considerations; >> Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status, directing ICANN org to perform specific actions to enable the Board to take further actions; >> Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups the CCT-RT identified for their consideration. The Board noted fourteen such recommendations (9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35). >> >> >> We invite you to refer to pages 1-4 of the scorecard https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org] which compile pass-through recommendations, including the groups they are addressed to. >> >> >> >> Accordingly, ICANN org wishes to notify you of the recommendations the ICANN Board resolved to pass through to you, in whole or in part, for your consideration: >> >> >> >> Recommendation 10. >> Recommendation 16 (in part) Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, Registries Stakeholder Group, Registrar Stakeholder Group, Generic Names Supporting Organization, Second Security, Stability & Resiliency of DNS Review Team as suggested by the CCT-RT. In the scorecard, the Board noted that ?it is not accepting the policy directives that may be inherent here but rather, passes on such elements of the recommendation to the relevant community groups to consider?. >> Recommendation 27. >> Recommendation 28. >> Recommendation 29. Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, as suggested by the CCT-RT. To inform work relating to recommendations 29 and 30, the ICANN Board suggested that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take on, ?should they choose to do so, defining the term ?Global South? or agreeing on another term to describe underserved or underrepresented regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN org?. >> >> >> We would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: ?in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting, nor rejecting the recommendations. [?] Passing recommendations through to community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on and the topics that the group will address?. >> >> As indicated in the resolution, the Board encourages community groups to be ?mindful of any interdependencies with ongoing work and discussions?. Additionally,the Board suggests ?to the referenced community groups that the CCT-RT's proposed priority levels be taken into account as the groups decide whether, how and when to address the CCT-RT recommendations that are being passed through [?]?. >> >> Additionally, we would like to flag the Board suggestion that for transparency purposes, ?it would be helpful to have records or reporting made available to the ICANN community on how the community group considered the items coming out of the CCT-RT. The Board encourages any level of reporting that the groups are able to provide as the ICANN org and Board track action on the CCT-RT's recommendations?. Please consider providing updates on your progress in addressing (as appropriate) these recommendations, to be included with ICANN org?s reporting. >> >> >> >> Background >> >> The Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) released its Final Report on 8 September 2018 ? see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf [icann.org]. The CCT-RT Final Report contains 35 recommendations and is the culmination of nearly three years of work, reviewing how the expansion of top-level domain names impacted competition, consumer trust and choice. For more information on the CCT Review and Specific Reviews, please read https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article4.6 [icann.org]. >> >> >> >> The ICANN Board took action on each of the 35 recommendations produced by the CCT-RT - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org] - on 1 March 2019 and was informed by public comment input received on the Final report (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-final-recs-2018-10-08-en [icann.org]). >> >> The Board?s decisions on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org]. A blog post on the Board action can be found at https://www.icann.org/news/blog/board-action-on-competition-consumer-trust-and-consumer-choice-review [icann.org] for more context. >> >> >> >> We thank you for your collaboration in considering the CCT-RT output. Please let us know whether you have any questions. >> >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> >> >> Best regards. >> >> >> >> Larisa Gurnick >> >> Vice-President, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives, ICANN >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=RE22OFJbx8_qCz9fmVxjYD5bSBWSra5Fht1r_CAvFp4&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=ZfTZxU0UZbd1AfNvK-d8E_O17i2IASh4IWsYKLBZmu4&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 11 19:04:38 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 16:04:38 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] Reminder: For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO In-Reply-To: <31BAA7EC-D818-4077-BB58-BBF9A5230806@digitaldiscretion.ca> References: <31BAA7EC-D818-4077-BB58-BBF9A5230806@digitaldiscretion.ca> Message-ID: Do we support the initiation then of a new PDP to address this issue? -- Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 03:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > No. > Steph > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 10, 2019, at 09:54, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> RE: This recommendation: >> >> The GNSO should initiate a new Policy Development Process (PDP) to create a consistent privacy baseline across all registries >> >> Do we support this response? >> >> The GNSO Council does not intend to initiate a new PDP as recommended (see rationale). The Council will seek feedback from the EPDP Team as to whether this Recommendation #10 has been or is being addressed in whole or in part by the EPDP. >> >> Offered rationale: >> >> This recommendation seems to have been overtaken by events such the GDPR and the EPDP. >> >> The Council is of the view that a PDP ?to create a consistent privacy baseline across all registries? is not within the ?picket fence? or ICANN?s mission. >> >> All gTLD registry operators are subject to applicable laws and regulations as well as ICANN?s consensus policies. >> >> gTLD registry operators around the globe process a wide and differing range of data (including WHOIS data). While their processing of WHOIS data is subject to ICANN contracts and consensus policies, it is up to each registry operator to set their own privacy policy that governs their processing of such data and ensures compliance with applicable laws and regulations. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 16:19, Nathalie Peregrine wrote: >> >>> Dear councilors, >>> >>> A reminder that the closing date for input on the initial draft of the proposed GNSO Council response to CCT-RT Recommendations is this coming Friday, 13 September 2019. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Nathalie >>> >>> From: council on behalf of PAMELALITTLE >>> Reply-To: PAMELALITTLE >>> Date: Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:45 AM >>> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" , Flip Petillion >>> Cc: "carlosraulg at gmail.com" >>> Subject: Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >>> >>> Hi Flip - Thank you for taking the time to review the draft. >>> >>> Dear Councilors, >>> >>> This item was on 22 August Council meeting agenda but was deferred to our next monthly meeting on 19 September. >>> >>> There are 5 recommendations under consideration and the small team's proposed response is as follows: >>> >>> #10 (initiating a PDP to create a privacy baseline across all registries) - No action at this time >>> >>> #16 (abuse and Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR)) - Redirect to ICANN org >>> >>> #27 & #28 - Refer to the RPM WG >>> >>> #29 be - Refer to Sub-pro WG >>> >>> It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a moment to review the draft (attached again) and, if appropriate, seek input from your respective group by 13 September 2019. It would hopefully make our discussion during the Council meeting more efficient. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Pam >>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Sender:Flip Petillion >>>> >>>> Sent At:2019 Aug. 20 (Tue.) 16:47 >>>> >>>> Recipient:PAMELALITTLE ; council at gnso.icann.org ; council >>>> >>>> Cc:"Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." >>>> >>>> Subject:Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >>>> >>>> Thank you Pam >>>> >>>> I have no comments. >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Flip >>>> >>>> Flip Petillion >>>> >>>> fpetillion at petillion.law >>>> >>>> +32484652653 >>>> >>>> www.petillion.law >>>> >>>> [[petillion.law]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=zHzLY9RS9U0fN-nqSv6KEzaXJtF2lHiOk0Ok7kstWbM&e=) >>>> >>>> Attorneys ? Advocaten - Avocats >>>> >>>> From: council on behalf of Pam Little >>>> Reply to: Pam Little >>>> Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 02:42 >>>> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" , council >>>> Cc: "Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." >>>> Subject: Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >>>> >>>> Dear Councilors, >>>> >>>> The small team would like to suggest some changes to the draft that was sent to the Council list late July: >>>> >>>> #16 on DAAR and DNS abuse - In light of the on-going conversations within the ICANN community, including a Plenary session on DNS Abuse to be held at ICANN66, we've made some suggested edits to the proposed Council response and new language to reflect this. >>>> >>>> #28 on cost-benefit analysis of TMCH - Staff recently clarified that the RPM WG did not carry out a cost-benefit analysis. While this was one of the specific Charter questions, Analysis Group's Final Report indicates that their data did not provide quantifiable information to include such analysis in its review. In light of this, we are suggesting a change to the proposed Council response: >>>> >>>> From: The GNSO Council will seek feedback/comment from the RPM WG whether its Phase 1 work has carried out a cost-benefit analysis consistent with the scope described in this Recommendation #28. >>>> >>>> To: The GNSO Council will refer this recommendation to the RPM WG. >>>> >>>> A redline version is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. We look forward to discussing this further at the upcoming Council meeting later this week. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Pam >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Sender:PAMELALITTLE >>>> >>>> Sent At:2019 Jul. 23 (Tue.) 16:31 >>>> >>>> Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org ; council >>>> >>>> Cc:"Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." ; Carlos Raul Gutierrez ; Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>> >>>> Subject:For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >>>> >>>> Dear Councilors, >>>> >>>> You may recall that the Council discussed this topic during the wrap-up session in Marrakesh and the action item was for a small team (Carlos, Michele and myself) to take a look at the 5 Recommendations that were passed through to GNSO (see the message below from Larisa Gurnick forwarded by Mary to Council). >>>> >>>> In addition, a number of Recommendations were passed through to gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and/or Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP Working Group. In order to have a better picture of where all the Recommendations passed to the GNSO and its PDPs stand, Keith is planning to write to the leadership of the Working Groups seeking their feedback. >>>> >>>> In the meantime, I attach an initial draft with the small team's proposed GNSO Council response to those 5 Recommendations passed through directly to the GNSO for your review and consideration. It is likely to be included in our August Council meeting agenda so please take some time to consider the proposed responses before the meeting. All feedback/comments/suggested edits are welcome! >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Pam >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Sender:Mary Wong >>>> >>>> Sent At:2019 Jun. 10 (Mon.) 16:43 >>>> >>>> Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org >>>> >>>> Subject:[council] Message regarding CCT-RT recommendations >>>> >>>> Dear Councilors, >>>> >>>> I am forwarding the message below on behalf of Larisa Gurnick, Vice-President in ICANN?s Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department. You may recall that the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust Review Team?s (CCT-RT) final recommendations included several that were directed at the GNSO Council. This notification should provide you with additional information and context for the ICANN Board?s action in respect of those recommendations. >>>> >>>> Dear Members of the GNSO Council, >>>> >>>> The purpose of this note is to highlight the Board resolution passed on 1 March 2019 - see [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D03-2D01-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=d653AEmkPoU5I6YTgKVksELfQQX3Pv9KlOR-qZCykbo&e=) - that calls for a set of Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Final Recommendations to be passed through to community groups. As articulated in the Board resolution, ?recognizing that the Board has the obligation and responsibility to balance the work of ICANN in order to preserve the ability for ICANN org to serve its Mission and the public interest, the Board decided on three categories of action?: >>>> >>>> - Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation considerations; >>>> >>>> - Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status, directing ICANN org to perform specific actions to enable the Board to take further actions; >>>> >>>> - Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups the CCT-RT identified for their consideration. The Board noted fourteen such recommendations (9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35). >>>> >>>> We invite you to refer to pages 1-4 of the scorecard [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_resolutions-2Dfinal-2Dcct-2Drecs-2Dscorecard-2D01mar19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=WHL6AQ0pPSwroWvDA9W4TTMRwnPc7hzcwmmrtiU346o&e=) which compile pass-through recommendations, including the groups they are addressed to. >>>> >>>> Accordingly, ICANN org wishes to notify you of the recommendations the ICANN Board resolved to pass through to you, in whole or in part, for your consideration: >>>> >>>> - Recommendation 10. >>>> >>>> - Recommendation 16 (in part) Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, Registries Stakeholder Group, Registrar Stakeholder Group, Generic Names Supporting Organization, Second Security, Stability & Resiliency of DNS Review Team as suggested by the CCT-RT. In the scorecard, the Board noted that ?it is not accepting the policy directives that may be inherent here but rather, passes on such elements of the recommendation to the relevant community groups to consider?. >>>> >>>> - Recommendation 27. >>>> >>>> - Recommendation 28. >>>> >>>> - Recommendation 29. Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, as suggested by the CCT-RT. To inform work relating to recommendations 29 and 30, the ICANN Board suggested that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take on, ?should they choose to do so, defining the term ?Global South? or agreeing on another term to describe underserved or underrepresented regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN org?. >>>> >>>> We would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: ?in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting, nor rejecting the recommendations. [?] Passing recommendations through to community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on and the topics that the group will address?. >>>> >>>> As indicated in the resolution, the Board encourages community groups to be ?mindful of any interdependencies with ongoing work and discussions?. Additionally,the Board suggests ?to the referenced community groups that the CCT-RT's proposed priority levels be taken into account as the groups decide whether, how and when to address the CCT-RT recommendations that are being passed through [?]?. >>>> >>>> Additionally, we would like to flag the Board suggestion that for transparency purposes, ?it would be helpful to have records or reporting made available to the ICANN community on how the community group considered the items coming out of the CCT-RT. The Board encourages any level of reporting that the groups are able to provide as the ICANN org and Board track action on the CCT-RT's recommendations?. Please consider providing updates on your progress in addressing (as appropriate) these recommendations, to be included with ICANN org?s reporting. >>>> >>>> Background >>>> >>>> The Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) released its Final Report on 8 September 2018 ? see [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Dfinal-2D08sep18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=6ICcKJIDUbDCBJXyA3WEljVWYV3q2Y17bqm9MhfIdiE&e=). The CCT-RT Final Report contains 35 recommendations and is the culmination of nearly three years of work, reviewing how the expansion of top-level domain names impacted competition, consumer trust and choice. For more information on the CCT Review and Specific Reviews, please read [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article4.6 [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_governance_bylaws-2Den-23article4.6&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=sk_R5n9lFzK-VjJ5MajW0gufBPKP-hHHtxwwm9affK4&e=). >>>> >>>> The ICANN Board took action on each of the 35 recommendations produced by the CCT-RT - see [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D03-2D01-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=d653AEmkPoU5I6YTgKVksELfQQX3Pv9KlOR-qZCykbo&e=) - on 1 March 2019 and was informed by public comment input received on the Final report (see [https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-final-recs-2018-10-08-en [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_cct-2Dfinal-2Drecs-2D2018-2D10-2D08-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=rnlQOqTJ0L8ars1j7DT1jgHvcY51YUlkAEoXnRf7NsE&e=)). >>>> >>>> The Board?s decisions on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_resolutions-2Dfinal-2Dcct-2Drecs-2Dscorecard-2D01mar19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=WHL6AQ0pPSwroWvDA9W4TTMRwnPc7hzcwmmrtiU346o&e=). A blog post on the Board action can be found at [https://www.icann.org/news/blog/board-action-on-competition-consumer-trust-and-consumer-choice-review [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog_board-2Daction-2Don-2Dcompetition-2Dconsumer-2Dtrust-2Dand-2Dconsumer-2Dchoice-2Dreview&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=tPbh87sl7effhOUw5FF9BkBI7x6y32Z1v4ucSL93tCg&e=) for more context. >>>> >>>> We thank you for your collaboration in considering the CCT-RT output. Please let us know whether you have any questions. >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> Best regards. >>>> >>>> Larisa Gurnick >>>> >>>> Vice-President, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives, ICANN > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> council mailing list >> council at gnso.icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >> >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=RE22OFJbx8_qCz9fmVxjYD5bSBWSra5Fht1r_CAvFp4&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=ZfTZxU0UZbd1AfNvK-d8E_O17i2IASh4IWsYKLBZmu4&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Sep 15 18:02:10 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 15:02:10 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] Reminder: For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO In-Reply-To: References: <31BAA7EC-D818-4077-BB58-BBF9A5230806@digitaldiscretion.ca> Message-ID: Just bumping this thread - would appreciate hearing from more members of the Policy Committee. Thanks. -- Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 18:04, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Do we support the initiation then of a new PDP to address this issue? > > -- Ayden > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 03:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> No. >> Steph >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Sep 10, 2019, at 09:54, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> RE: This recommendation: >>> >>> The GNSO should initiate a new Policy Development Process (PDP) to create a consistent privacy baseline across all registries >>> >>> Do we support this response? >>> >>> The GNSO Council does not intend to initiate a new PDP as recommended (see rationale). The Council will seek feedback from the EPDP Team as to whether this Recommendation #10 has been or is being addressed in whole or in part by the EPDP. >>> >>> Offered rationale: >>> >>> This recommendation seems to have been overtaken by events such the GDPR and the EPDP. >>> >>> The Council is of the view that a PDP ?to create a consistent privacy baseline across all registries? is not within the ?picket fence? or ICANN?s mission. >>> >>> All gTLD registry operators are subject to applicable laws and regulations as well as ICANN?s consensus policies. >>> >>> gTLD registry operators around the globe process a wide and differing range of data (including WHOIS data). While their processing of WHOIS data is subject to ICANN contracts and consensus policies, it is up to each registry operator to set their own privacy policy that governs their processing of such data and ensures compliance with applicable laws and regulations. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 16:19, Nathalie Peregrine wrote: >>> >>>> Dear councilors, >>>> >>>> A reminder that the closing date for input on the initial draft of the proposed GNSO Council response to CCT-RT Recommendations is this coming Friday, 13 September 2019. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Nathalie >>>> >>>> From: council on behalf of PAMELALITTLE >>>> Reply-To: PAMELALITTLE >>>> Date: Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:45 AM >>>> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" , Flip Petillion >>>> Cc: "carlosraulg at gmail.com" >>>> Subject: Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >>>> >>>> Hi Flip - Thank you for taking the time to review the draft. >>>> >>>> Dear Councilors, >>>> >>>> This item was on 22 August Council meeting agenda but was deferred to our next monthly meeting on 19 September. >>>> >>>> There are 5 recommendations under consideration and the small team's proposed response is as follows: >>>> >>>> #10 (initiating a PDP to create a privacy baseline across all registries) - No action at this time >>>> >>>> #16 (abuse and Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR)) - Redirect to ICANN org >>>> >>>> #27 & #28 - Refer to the RPM WG >>>> >>>> #29 be - Refer to Sub-pro WG >>>> >>>> It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a moment to review the draft (attached again) and, if appropriate, seek input from your respective group by 13 September 2019. It would hopefully make our discussion during the Council meeting more efficient. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Pam >>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Sender:Flip Petillion >>>>> >>>>> Sent At:2019 Aug. 20 (Tue.) 16:47 >>>>> >>>>> Recipient:PAMELALITTLE ; council at gnso.icann.org ; council >>>>> >>>>> Cc:"Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." >>>>> >>>>> Subject:Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >>>>> >>>>> Thank you Pam >>>>> >>>>> I have no comments. >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Flip >>>>> >>>>> Flip Petillion >>>>> >>>>> fpetillion at petillion.law >>>>> >>>>> +32484652653 >>>>> >>>>> www.petillion.law >>>>> >>>>> [[petillion.law]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=zHzLY9RS9U0fN-nqSv6KEzaXJtF2lHiOk0Ok7kstWbM&e=) >>>>> >>>>> Attorneys ? Advocaten - Avocats >>>>> >>>>> From: council on behalf of Pam Little >>>>> Reply to: Pam Little >>>>> Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 02:42 >>>>> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" , council >>>>> Cc: "Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." >>>>> Subject: Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >>>>> >>>>> Dear Councilors, >>>>> >>>>> The small team would like to suggest some changes to the draft that was sent to the Council list late July: >>>>> >>>>> #16 on DAAR and DNS abuse - In light of the on-going conversations within the ICANN community, including a Plenary session on DNS Abuse to be held at ICANN66, we've made some suggested edits to the proposed Council response and new language to reflect this. >>>>> >>>>> #28 on cost-benefit analysis of TMCH - Staff recently clarified that the RPM WG did not carry out a cost-benefit analysis. While this was one of the specific Charter questions, Analysis Group's Final Report indicates that their data did not provide quantifiable information to include such analysis in its review. In light of this, we are suggesting a change to the proposed Council response: >>>>> >>>>> From: The GNSO Council will seek feedback/comment from the RPM WG whether its Phase 1 work has carried out a cost-benefit analysis consistent with the scope described in this Recommendation #28. >>>>> >>>>> To: The GNSO Council will refer this recommendation to the RPM WG. >>>>> >>>>> A redline version is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. We look forward to discussing this further at the upcoming Council meeting later this week. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Pam >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Sender:PAMELALITTLE >>>>> >>>>> Sent At:2019 Jul. 23 (Tue.) 16:31 >>>>> >>>>> Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org ; council >>>>> >>>>> Cc:"Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." ; Carlos Raul Gutierrez ; Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>>> >>>>> Subject:For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >>>>> >>>>> Dear Councilors, >>>>> >>>>> You may recall that the Council discussed this topic during the wrap-up session in Marrakesh and the action item was for a small team (Carlos, Michele and myself) to take a look at the 5 Recommendations that were passed through to GNSO (see the message below from Larisa Gurnick forwarded by Mary to Council). >>>>> >>>>> In addition, a number of Recommendations were passed through to gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and/or Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP Working Group. In order to have a better picture of where all the Recommendations passed to the GNSO and its PDPs stand, Keith is planning to write to the leadership of the Working Groups seeking their feedback. >>>>> >>>>> In the meantime, I attach an initial draft with the small team's proposed GNSO Council response to those 5 Recommendations passed through directly to the GNSO for your review and consideration. It is likely to be included in our August Council meeting agenda so please take some time to consider the proposed responses before the meeting. All feedback/comments/suggested edits are welcome! >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Pam >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Sender:Mary Wong >>>>> >>>>> Sent At:2019 Jun. 10 (Mon.) 16:43 >>>>> >>>>> Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org >>>>> >>>>> Subject:[council] Message regarding CCT-RT recommendations >>>>> >>>>> Dear Councilors, >>>>> >>>>> I am forwarding the message below on behalf of Larisa Gurnick, Vice-President in ICANN?s Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department. You may recall that the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust Review Team?s (CCT-RT) final recommendations included several that were directed at the GNSO Council. This notification should provide you with additional information and context for the ICANN Board?s action in respect of those recommendations. >>>>> >>>>> Dear Members of the GNSO Council, >>>>> >>>>> The purpose of this note is to highlight the Board resolution passed on 1 March 2019 - see [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D03-2D01-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=d653AEmkPoU5I6YTgKVksELfQQX3Pv9KlOR-qZCykbo&e=) - that calls for a set of Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Final Recommendations to be passed through to community groups. As articulated in the Board resolution, ?recognizing that the Board has the obligation and responsibility to balance the work of ICANN in order to preserve the ability for ICANN org to serve its Mission and the public interest, the Board decided on three categories of action?: >>>>> >>>>> - Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation considerations; >>>>> >>>>> - Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status, directing ICANN org to perform specific actions to enable the Board to take further actions; >>>>> >>>>> - Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups the CCT-RT identified for their consideration. The Board noted fourteen such recommendations (9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35). >>>>> >>>>> We invite you to refer to pages 1-4 of the scorecard [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_resolutions-2Dfinal-2Dcct-2Drecs-2Dscorecard-2D01mar19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=WHL6AQ0pPSwroWvDA9W4TTMRwnPc7hzcwmmrtiU346o&e=) which compile pass-through recommendations, including the groups they are addressed to. >>>>> >>>>> Accordingly, ICANN org wishes to notify you of the recommendations the ICANN Board resolved to pass through to you, in whole or in part, for your consideration: >>>>> >>>>> - Recommendation 10. >>>>> >>>>> - Recommendation 16 (in part) Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, Registries Stakeholder Group, Registrar Stakeholder Group, Generic Names Supporting Organization, Second Security, Stability & Resiliency of DNS Review Team as suggested by the CCT-RT. In the scorecard, the Board noted that ?it is not accepting the policy directives that may be inherent here but rather, passes on such elements of the recommendation to the relevant community groups to consider?. >>>>> >>>>> - Recommendation 27. >>>>> >>>>> - Recommendation 28. >>>>> >>>>> - Recommendation 29. Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, as suggested by the CCT-RT. To inform work relating to recommendations 29 and 30, the ICANN Board suggested that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take on, ?should they choose to do so, defining the term ?Global South? or agreeing on another term to describe underserved or underrepresented regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN org?. >>>>> >>>>> We would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: ?in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting, nor rejecting the recommendations. [?] Passing recommendations through to community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on and the topics that the group will address?. >>>>> >>>>> As indicated in the resolution, the Board encourages community groups to be ?mindful of any interdependencies with ongoing work and discussions?. Additionally,the Board suggests ?to the referenced community groups that the CCT-RT's proposed priority levels be taken into account as the groups decide whether, how and when to address the CCT-RT recommendations that are being passed through [?]?. >>>>> >>>>> Additionally, we would like to flag the Board suggestion that for transparency purposes, ?it would be helpful to have records or reporting made available to the ICANN community on how the community group considered the items coming out of the CCT-RT. The Board encourages any level of reporting that the groups are able to provide as the ICANN org and Board track action on the CCT-RT's recommendations?. Please consider providing updates on your progress in addressing (as appropriate) these recommendations, to be included with ICANN org?s reporting. >>>>> >>>>> Background >>>>> >>>>> The Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) released its Final Report on 8 September 2018 ? see [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Dfinal-2D08sep18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=6ICcKJIDUbDCBJXyA3WEljVWYV3q2Y17bqm9MhfIdiE&e=). The CCT-RT Final Report contains 35 recommendations and is the culmination of nearly three years of work, reviewing how the expansion of top-level domain names impacted competition, consumer trust and choice. For more information on the CCT Review and Specific Reviews, please read [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article4.6 [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_governance_bylaws-2Den-23article4.6&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=sk_R5n9lFzK-VjJ5MajW0gufBPKP-hHHtxwwm9affK4&e=). >>>>> >>>>> The ICANN Board took action on each of the 35 recommendations produced by the CCT-RT - see [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D03-2D01-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=d653AEmkPoU5I6YTgKVksELfQQX3Pv9KlOR-qZCykbo&e=) - on 1 March 2019 and was informed by public comment input received on the Final report (see [https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-final-recs-2018-10-08-en [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_cct-2Dfinal-2Drecs-2D2018-2D10-2D08-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=rnlQOqTJ0L8ars1j7DT1jgHvcY51YUlkAEoXnRf7NsE&e=)). >>>>> >>>>> The Board?s decisions on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_resolutions-2Dfinal-2Dcct-2Drecs-2Dscorecard-2D01mar19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=WHL6AQ0pPSwroWvDA9W4TTMRwnPc7hzcwmmrtiU346o&e=). A blog post on the Board action can be found at [https://www.icann.org/news/blog/board-action-on-competition-consumer-trust-and-consumer-choice-review [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog_board-2Daction-2Don-2Dcompetition-2Dconsumer-2Dtrust-2Dand-2Dconsumer-2Dchoice-2Dreview&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=tPbh87sl7effhOUw5FF9BkBI7x6y32Z1v4ucSL93tCg&e=) for more context. >>>>> >>>>> We thank you for your collaboration in considering the CCT-RT output. Please let us know whether you have any questions. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards. >>>>> >>>>> Larisa Gurnick >>>>> >>>>> Vice-President, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives, ICANN >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> council mailing list >>> council at gnso.icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=RE22OFJbx8_qCz9fmVxjYD5bSBWSra5Fht1r_CAvFp4&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=ZfTZxU0UZbd1AfNvK-d8E_O17i2IASh4IWsYKLBZmu4&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Mon Sep 16 00:09:08 2019 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 18:09:08 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] Reminder: For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO In-Reply-To: References: <31BAA7EC-D818-4077-BB58-BBF9A5230806@digitaldiscretion.ca> Message-ID: <27D1B641-FD6C-4FA7-9356-45DA969BE5AC@gmail.com> I fear my reading might not be as insightful as the members involved in the EPDP for the matter on the privacy base line, I would like to hear ideas from more experts to help form one of my own if possible. For the other it is clear that are matters addressed by RPMs and SubPro. Best, Mart?n > On 15 Sep 2019, at 12:02, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Just bumping this thread - would appreciate hearing from more members of the Policy Committee. Thanks. > > -- Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 18:04, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > >> Do we support the initiation then of a new PDP to address this issue? >> >> -- Ayden >> >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 03:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >>> No. >>> Steph >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Sep 10, 2019, at 09:54, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: >>>> RE: This recommendation: >>>> >>>> The GNSO should initiate a new Policy Development Process (PDP) to create a consistent privacy baseline across all registries >>>> >>>> Do we support this response? >>>> >>>> The GNSO Council does not intend to initiate a new PDP as recommended (see rationale). The Council will seek feedback from the EPDP Team as to whether this Recommendation #10 has been or is being addressed in whole or in part by the EPDP. >>>> >>>> Offered rationale: >>>> >>>> This recommendation seems to have been overtaken by events such the GDPR and the EPDP. >>>> >>>> The Council is of the view that a PDP ?to create a consistent privacy baseline across all registries? is not within the ?picket fence? or ICANN?s mission. >>>> >>>> All gTLD registry operators are subject to applicable laws and regulations as well as ICANN?s consensus policies. >>>> >>>> gTLD registry operators around the globe process a wide and differing range of data (including WHOIS data). While their processing of WHOIS data is subject to ICANN contracts and consensus policies, it is up to each registry operator to set their own privacy policy that governs their processing of such data and ensures compliance with applicable laws and regulations. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>> On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 16:19, Nathalie Peregrine > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear councilors, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A reminder that the closing date for input on the initial draft of the proposed GNSO Council response to CCT-RT Recommendations is this coming Friday, 13 September 2019. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nathalie >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: council > on behalf of PAMELALITTLE > >>>>> Reply-To: PAMELALITTLE > >>>>> Date: Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:45 AM >>>>> To: "council at gnso.icann.org " >, Flip Petillion > >>>>> Cc: "carlosraulg at gmail.com " > >>>>> Subject: Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Flip - Thank you for taking the time to review the draft. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Councilors, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This item was on 22 August Council meeting agenda but was deferred to our next monthly meeting on 19 September. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are 5 recommendations under consideration and the small team's proposed response is as follows: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> #10 (initiating a PDP to create a privacy baseline across all registries) - No action at this time >>>>> >>>>> #16 (abuse and Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR)) - Redirect to ICANN org >>>>> >>>>> #27 & #28 - Refer to the RPM WG >>>>> >>>>> #29 be - Refer to Sub-pro WG >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a moment to review the draft (attached again) and, if appropriate, seek input from your respective group by 13 September 2019. It would hopefully make our discussion during the Council meeting more efficient. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pam >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Sender:Flip Petillion > >>>>> >>>>> Sent At:2019 Aug. 20 (Tue.) 16:47 >>>>> >>>>> Recipient:PAMELALITTLE >; council at gnso.icann.org >; council > >>>>> >>>>> Cc:"Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." > >>>>> >>>>> Subject:Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you Pam >>>>> >>>>> I have no comments. >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Flip >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Flip Petillion >>>>> >>>>> fpetillion at petillion.law >>>>> +32484652653 >>>>> >>>>> www.petillion.law >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [petillion.law] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Attorneys ? Advocaten - Avocats >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: council > on behalf of Pam Little > >>>>> Reply to: Pam Little > >>>>> Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 02:42 >>>>> To: "council at gnso.icann.org " >, council > >>>>> Cc: "Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." > >>>>> Subject: Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Councilors, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The small team would like to suggest some changes to the draft that was sent to the Council list late July: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> #16 on DAAR and DNS abuse - In light of the on-going conversations within the ICANN community, including a Plenary session on DNS Abuse to be held at ICANN66, we've made some suggested edits to the proposed Council response and new language to reflect this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> #28 on cost-benefit analysis of TMCH - Staff recently clarified that the RPM WG did not carry out a cost-benefit analysis. While this was one of the specific Charter questions, Analysis Group's Final Report indicates that their data did not provide quantifiable information to include such analysis in its review. In light of this, we are suggesting a change to the proposed Council response: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: The GNSO Council will seek feedback/comment from the RPM WG whether its Phase 1 work has carried out a cost-benefit analysis consistent with the scope described in this Recommendation #28. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To: The GNSO Council will refer this recommendation to the RPM WG. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A redline version is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. We look forward to discussing this further at the upcoming Council meeting later this week. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pam >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Sender:PAMELALITTLE > >>>>> >>>>> Sent At:2019 Jul. 23 (Tue.) 16:31 >>>>> >>>>> Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org >; council > >>>>> >>>>> Cc:"Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." >; Carlos Raul Gutierrez >; Michele Neylon - Blacknight > >>>>> >>>>> Subject:For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Councilors, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You may recall that the Council discussed this topic during the wrap-up session in Marrakesh and the action item was for a small team (Carlos, Michele and myself) to take a look at the 5 Recommendations that were passed through to GNSO (see the message below from Larisa Gurnick forwarded by Mary to Council). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In addition, a number of Recommendations were passed through to gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and/or Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP Working Group. In order to have a better picture of where all the Recommendations passed to the GNSO and its PDPs stand, Keith is planning to write to the leadership of the Working Groups seeking their feedback. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In the meantime, I attach an initial draft with the small team's proposed GNSO Council response to those 5 Recommendations passed through directly to the GNSO for your review and consideration. It is likely to be included in our August Council meeting agenda so please take some time to consider the proposed responses before the meeting. All feedback/comments/suggested edits are welcome! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Sender:Mary Wong > >>>>> >>>>> Sent At:2019 Jun. 10 (Mon.) 16:43 >>>>> >>>>> Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org > >>>>> >>>>> Subject:[council] Message regarding CCT-RT recommendations >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Councilors, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am forwarding the message below on behalf of Larisa Gurnick, Vice-President in ICANN?s Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department. You may recall that the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust Review Team?s (CCT-RT) final recommendations included several that were directed at the GNSO Council. This notification should provide you with additional information and context for the ICANN Board?s action in respect of those recommendations. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Members of the GNSO Council, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The purpose of this note is to highlight the Board resolution passed on 1 March 2019 - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org] - that calls for a set of Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Final Recommendations to be passed through to community groups. As articulated in the Board resolution, ?recognizing that the Board has the obligation and responsibility to balance the work of ICANN in order to preserve the ability for ICANN org to serve its Mission and the public interest, the Board decided on three categories of action?: >>>>> >>>>> Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation considerations; >>>>> Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status, directing ICANN org to perform specific actions to enable the Board to take further actions; >>>>> Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups the CCT-RT identified for their consideration. The Board noted fourteen such recommendations (9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We invite you to refer to pages 1-4 of the scorecard https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org] which compile pass-through recommendations, including the groups they are addressed to. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Accordingly, ICANN org wishes to notify you of the recommendations the ICANN Board resolved to pass through to you, in whole or in part, for your consideration: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Recommendation 10. >>>>> Recommendation 16 (in part) Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, Registries Stakeholder Group, Registrar Stakeholder Group, Generic Names Supporting Organization, Second Security, Stability & Resiliency of DNS Review Team as suggested by the CCT-RT. In the scorecard, the Board noted that ?it is not accepting the policy directives that may be inherent here but rather, passes on such elements of the recommendation to the relevant community groups to consider?. >>>>> Recommendation 27. >>>>> Recommendation 28. >>>>> Recommendation 29. Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, as suggested by the CCT-RT. To inform work relating to recommendations 29 and 30, the ICANN Board suggested that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take on, ?should they choose to do so, defining the term ?Global South? or agreeing on another term to describe underserved or underrepresented regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN org?. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: ?in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting, nor rejecting the recommendations. [?] Passing recommendations through to community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on and the topics that the group will address?. >>>>> >>>>> As indicated in the resolution, the Board encourages community groups to be ?mindful of any interdependencies with ongoing work and discussions?. Additionally,the Board suggests ?to the referenced community groups that the CCT-RT's proposed priority levels be taken into account as the groups decide whether, how and when to address the CCT-RT recommendations that are being passed through [?]?. >>>>> >>>>> Additionally, we would like to flag the Board suggestion that for transparency purposes, ?it would be helpful to have records or reporting made available to the ICANN community on how the community group considered the items coming out of the CCT-RT. The Board encourages any level of reporting that the groups are able to provide as the ICANN org and Board track action on the CCT-RT's recommendations?. Please consider providing updates on your progress in addressing (as appropriate) these recommendations, to be included with ICANN org?s reporting. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Background >>>>> >>>>> The Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) released its Final Report on 8 September 2018 ? see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf [icann.org] . The CCT-RT Final Report contains 35 recommendations and is the culmination of nearly three years of work, reviewing how the expansion of top-level domain names impacted competition, consumer trust and choice. For more information on the CCT Review and Specific Reviews, please readhttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article4.6 [icann.org] . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The ICANN Board took action on each of the 35 recommendations produced by the CCT-RT - seehttps://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org] - on 1 March 2019 and was informed by public comment input received on the Final report (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-final-recs-2018-10-08-en [icann.org] ). >>>>> >>>>> The Board?s decisions on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published athttps://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org] . A blog post on the Board action can be found at https://www.icann.org/news/blog/board-action-on-competition-consumer-trust-and-consumer-choice-review [icann.org] for more context. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We thank you for your collaboration in considering the CCT-RT output. Please let us know whether you have any questions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Larisa Gurnick >>>>> >>>>> Vice-President, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives, ICANN >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> council mailing list >>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=RE22OFJbx8_qCz9fmVxjYD5bSBWSra5Fht1r_CAvFp4&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=ZfTZxU0UZbd1AfNvK-d8E_O17i2IASh4IWsYKLBZmu4&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Sep 16 11:20:30 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 08:20:30 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] Reminder: For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO In-Reply-To: <27D1B641-FD6C-4FA7-9356-45DA969BE5AC@gmail.com> References: <31BAA7EC-D818-4077-BB58-BBF9A5230806@digitaldiscretion.ca> <27D1B641-FD6C-4FA7-9356-45DA969BE5AC@gmail.com> Message-ID: Unfortunately, we have now missed the deadline to provide edits on this document. -- Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Sunday, 15 September 2019 23:09, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > I fear my reading might not be as insightful as the members involved in the EPDP for the matter on the privacy base line, I would like to hear ideas from more experts to help form one of my own if possible. For the other it is clear that are matters addressed by RPMs and SubPro. > > Best, Mart?n > >> On 15 Sep 2019, at 12:02, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >> Just bumping this thread - would appreciate hearing from more members of the Policy Committee. Thanks. >> >> -- Ayden >> >> ??????? Original Message ??????? >> On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 18:04, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> Do we support the initiation then of a new PDP to address this issue? >>> >>> -- Ayden >>> >>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>> On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 03:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >>>> No. >>>> Steph >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Sep 10, 2019, at 09:54, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> RE: This recommendation: >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO should initiate a new Policy Development Process (PDP) to create a consistent privacy baseline across all registries >>>>> >>>>> Do we support this response? >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council does not intend to initiate a new PDP as recommended (see rationale). The Council will seek feedback from the EPDP Team as to whether this Recommendation #10 has been or is being addressed in whole or in part by the EPDP. >>>>> >>>>> Offered rationale: >>>>> >>>>> This recommendation seems to have been overtaken by events such the GDPR and the EPDP. >>>>> >>>>> The Council is of the view that a PDP ?to create a consistent privacy baseline across all registries? is not within the ?picket fence? or ICANN?s mission. >>>>> >>>>> All gTLD registry operators are subject to applicable laws and regulations as well as ICANN?s consensus policies. >>>>> >>>>> gTLD registry operators around the globe process a wide and differing range of data (including WHOIS data). While their processing of WHOIS data is subject to ICANN contracts and consensus policies, it is up to each registry operator to set their own privacy policy that governs their processing of such data and ensures compliance with applicable laws and regulations. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> ??????? Original Message ??????? >>>>> On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 16:19, Nathalie Peregrine wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear councilors, >>>>>> >>>>>> A reminder that the closing date for input on the initial draft of the proposed GNSO Council response to CCT-RT Recommendations is this coming Friday, 13 September 2019. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Nathalie >>>>>> >>>>>> From: council on behalf of PAMELALITTLE >>>>>> Reply-To: PAMELALITTLE >>>>>> Date: Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:45 AM >>>>>> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" , Flip Petillion >>>>>> Cc: "carlosraulg at gmail.com" >>>>>> Subject: Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Flip - Thank you for taking the time to review the draft. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Councilors, >>>>>> >>>>>> This item was on 22 August Council meeting agenda but was deferred to our next monthly meeting on 19 September. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are 5 recommendations under consideration and the small team's proposed response is as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> #10 (initiating a PDP to create a privacy baseline across all registries) - No action at this time >>>>>> >>>>>> #16 (abuse and Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR)) - Redirect to ICANN org >>>>>> >>>>>> #27 & #28 - Refer to the RPM WG >>>>>> >>>>>> #29 be - Refer to Sub-pro WG >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a moment to review the draft (attached again) and, if appropriate, seek input from your respective group by 13 September 2019. It would hopefully make our discussion during the Council meeting more efficient. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Pam >>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sender:Flip Petillion >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent At:2019 Aug. 20 (Tue.) 16:47 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Recipient:PAMELALITTLE ; council at gnso.icann.org ; council >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cc:"Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject:Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you Pam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have no comments. >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Flip >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Flip Petillion >>>>>>> >>>>>>> fpetillion at petillion.law >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +32484652653 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [www.petillion.law](http://www.petillion.law/) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [[petillion.law]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=zHzLY9RS9U0fN-nqSv6KEzaXJtF2lHiOk0Ok7kstWbM&e=) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attorneys ? Advocaten - Avocats >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: council on behalf of Pam Little >>>>>>> Reply to: Pam Little >>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 02:42 >>>>>>> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" , council >>>>>>> Cc: "Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Councilors, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The small team would like to suggest some changes to the draft that was sent to the Council list late July: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> #16 on DAAR and DNS abuse - In light of the on-going conversations within the ICANN community, including a Plenary session on DNS Abuse to be held at ICANN66, we've made some suggested edits to the proposed Council response and new language to reflect this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> #28 on cost-benefit analysis of TMCH - Staff recently clarified that the RPM WG did not carry out a cost-benefit analysis. While this was one of the specific Charter questions, Analysis Group's Final Report indicates that their data did not provide quantifiable information to include such analysis in its review. In light of this, we are suggesting a change to the proposed Council response: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: The GNSO Council will seek feedback/comment from the RPM WG whether its Phase 1 work has carried out a cost-benefit analysis consistent with the scope described in this Recommendation #28. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To: The GNSO Council will refer this recommendation to the RPM WG. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A redline version is attached for your review. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. We look forward to discussing this further at the upcoming Council meeting later this week. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sender:PAMELALITTLE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent At:2019 Jul. 23 (Tue.) 16:31 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org ; council >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cc:"Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." ; Carlos Raul Gutierrez ; Michele Neylon - Blacknight >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject:For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Councilors, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You may recall that the Council discussed this topic during the wrap-up session in Marrakesh and the action item was for a small team (Carlos, Michele and myself) to take a look at the 5 Recommendations that were passed through to GNSO (see the message below from Larisa Gurnick forwarded by Mary to Council). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In addition, a number of Recommendations were passed through to gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and/or Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP Working Group. In order to have a better picture of where all the Recommendations passed to the GNSO and its PDPs stand, Keith is planning to write to the leadership of the Working Groups seeking their feedback. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the meantime, I attach an initial draft with the small team's proposed GNSO Council response to those 5 Recommendations passed through directly to the GNSO for your review and consideration. It is likely to be included in our August Council meeting agenda so please take some time to consider the proposed responses before the meeting. All feedback/comments/suggested edits are welcome! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sender:Mary Wong >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent At:2019 Jun. 10 (Mon.) 16:43 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject:[council] Message regarding CCT-RT recommendations >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Councilors, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am forwarding the message below on behalf of Larisa Gurnick, Vice-President in ICANN?s Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department. You may recall that the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust Review Team?s (CCT-RT) final recommendations included several that were directed at the GNSO Council. This notification should provide you with additional information and context for the ICANN Board?s action in respect of those recommendations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Members of the GNSO Council, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The purpose of this note is to highlight the Board resolution passed on 1 March 2019 - see [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D03-2D01-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=d653AEmkPoU5I6YTgKVksELfQQX3Pv9KlOR-qZCykbo&e=) - that calls for a set of Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Final Recommendations to be passed through to community groups. As articulated in the Board resolution, ?recognizing that the Board has the obligation and responsibility to balance the work of ICANN in order to preserve the ability for ICANN org to serve its Mission and the public interest, the Board decided on three categories of action?: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation considerations; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status, directing ICANN org to perform specific actions to enable the Board to take further actions; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups the CCT-RT identified for their consideration. The Board noted fourteen such recommendations (9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We invite you to refer to pages 1-4 of the scorecard [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_resolutions-2Dfinal-2Dcct-2Drecs-2Dscorecard-2D01mar19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=WHL6AQ0pPSwroWvDA9W4TTMRwnPc7hzcwmmrtiU346o&e=) which compile pass-through recommendations, including the groups they are addressed to. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Accordingly, ICANN org wishes to notify you of the recommendations the ICANN Board resolved to pass through to you, in whole or in part, for your consideration: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Recommendation 10. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Recommendation 16 (in part) Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, Registries Stakeholder Group, Registrar Stakeholder Group, Generic Names Supporting Organization, Second Security, Stability & Resiliency of DNS Review Team as suggested by the CCT-RT. In the scorecard, the Board noted that ?it is not accepting the policy directives that may be inherent here but rather, passes on such elements of the recommendation to the relevant community groups to consider?. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Recommendation 27. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Recommendation 28. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Recommendation 29. Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, as suggested by the CCT-RT. To inform work relating to recommendations 29 and 30, the ICANN Board suggested that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take on, ?should they choose to do so, defining the term ?Global South? or agreeing on another term to describe underserved or underrepresented regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN org?. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: ?in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting, nor rejecting the recommendations. [?] Passing recommendations through to community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on and the topics that the group will address?. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As indicated in the resolution, the Board encourages community groups to be ?mindful of any interdependencies with ongoing work and discussions?. Additionally,the Board suggests ?to the referenced community groups that the CCT-RT's proposed priority levels be taken into account as the groups decide whether, how and when to address the CCT-RT recommendations that are being passed through [?]?. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Additionally, we would like to flag the Board suggestion that for transparency purposes, ?it would be helpful to have records or reporting made available to the ICANN community on how the community group considered the items coming out of the CCT-RT. The Board encourages any level of reporting that the groups are able to provide as the ICANN org and Board track action on the CCT-RT's recommendations?. Please consider providing updates on your progress in addressing (as appropriate) these recommendations, to be included with ICANN org?s reporting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Background >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) released its Final Report on 8 September 2018 ? see [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Dfinal-2D08sep18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=6ICcKJIDUbDCBJXyA3WEljVWYV3q2Y17bqm9MhfIdiE&e=). The CCT-RT Final Report contains 35 recommendations and is the culmination of nearly three years of work, reviewing how the expansion of top-level domain names impacted competition, consumer trust and choice. For more information on the CCT Review and Specific Reviews, please read [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article4.6 [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_governance_bylaws-2Den-23article4.6&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=sk_R5n9lFzK-VjJ5MajW0gufBPKP-hHHtxwwm9affK4&e=). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The ICANN Board took action on each of the 35 recommendations produced by the CCT-RT - see [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D03-2D01-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=d653AEmkPoU5I6YTgKVksELfQQX3Pv9KlOR-qZCykbo&e=) - on 1 March 2019 and was informed by public comment input received on the Final report (see [https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-final-recs-2018-10-08-en [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_cct-2Dfinal-2Drecs-2D2018-2D10-2D08-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=rnlQOqTJ0L8ars1j7DT1jgHvcY51YUlkAEoXnRf7NsE&e=)). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Board?s decisions on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_resolutions-2Dfinal-2Dcct-2Drecs-2Dscorecard-2D01mar19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=WHL6AQ0pPSwroWvDA9W4TTMRwnPc7hzcwmmrtiU346o&e=). A blog post on the Board action can be found at [https://www.icann.org/news/blog/board-action-on-competition-consumer-trust-and-consumer-choice-review [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog_board-2Daction-2Don-2Dcompetition-2Dconsumer-2Dtrust-2Dand-2Dconsumer-2Dchoice-2Dreview&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=tPbh87sl7effhOUw5FF9BkBI7x6y32Z1v4ucSL93tCg&e=) for more context. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We thank you for your collaboration in considering the CCT-RT output. Please let us know whether you have any questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Larisa Gurnick >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vice-President, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives, ICANN >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> council mailing list >>>>> council at gnso.icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=RE22OFJbx8_qCz9fmVxjYD5bSBWSra5Fht1r_CAvFp4&e= ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=ZfTZxU0UZbd1AfNvK-d8E_O17i2IASh4IWsYKLBZmu4&e= ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Sep 17 03:43:49 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:43:49 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] Reminder: For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO In-Reply-To: References: <31BAA7EC-D818-4077-BB58-BBF9A5230806@digitaldiscretion.ca> Message-ID: Hi, The draft is fine. I don?t understand in which grounds we will object to it. Privacy for RDS is already what we are doing with EPDP and would cover the mentioned cases. I understand that the recommendation is about other data than RDS/Whois for registries operators to deal with registrants. I don?t think that is within ICANN remit or scope. Initiating a PDP in this matter is unlikely to happen because am expected CPH opposition and if for some reason it happens, that would open a can of worms that we cannot handle. Best, Rafik Le lun. 16 sept. 2019 ? 00:02, Ayden F?rdeline a ?crit : > Just bumping this thread - would appreciate hearing from more members of > the Policy Committee. Thanks. > > -- Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 18:04, Ayden F?rdeline < > icann at ferdeline.com> wrote: > > Do we support the initiation then of a new PDP to address this issue? > > -- Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 03:12, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> wrote: > > No. > Steph > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 10, 2019, at 09:54, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > RE: This recommendation: > > *The GNSO should initiate a new Policy Development Process (PDP) to create > a consistent privacy baseline across all registries* > > Do we support this response? > > *The GNSO Council does not intend to initiate a new PDP as recommended > (see rationale). The Council will seek feedback from the EPDP Team as to > whether this Recommendation #10 has been or is being addressed in whole or > in part by the EPDP.* > > Offered rationale: > > *This recommendation seems to have been overtaken by events such the GDPR > and the EPDP.* > > *The Council is of the view that a PDP ?to create a consistent privacy > baseline across all registries? is not within the ?picket fence? or ICANN?s > mission.* > > *All gTLD registry operators are subject to applicable laws and > regulations as well as ICANN?s consensus policies.* > > *gTLD registry operators around the globe process a wide and differing > range of data (including WHOIS data). While their processing of WHOIS data > is subject to ICANN contracts and consensus policies, it is up to each > registry operator to set their own privacy policy that governs their > processing of such data and ensures compliance with applicable laws and > regulations.* > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > ??????? Original Message ??????? > On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 16:19, Nathalie Peregrine < > nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> wrote: > > Dear councilors, > > > > A reminder that the closing date for input on the initial draft of the > proposed GNSO Council response to CCT-RT Recommendations is this coming *Friday, > 13 September 2019*. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Nathalie > > > > *From: *council on behalf of > PAMELALITTLE > *Reply-To: *PAMELALITTLE > *Date: *Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:45 AM > *To: *"council at gnso.icann.org" , Flip Petillion < > fpetillion at petillion.law> > *Cc: *"carlosraulg at gmail.com" > *Subject: *Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO > Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO > > > > Hi Flip - Thank you for taking the time to review the draft. > > > > Dear Councilors, > > > > This item was on 22 August Council meeting agenda but was deferred to our > next monthly meeting on 19 September. > > > > There are 5 recommendations under consideration and the small team's > proposed response is as follows: > > > > #10 (initiating a PDP to create a privacy baseline across all registries) > - No action at this time > > #16 (abuse and Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR)) - Redirect to > ICANN org > > #27 & #28 - Refer to the RPM WG > > #29 be - Refer to Sub-pro WG > > > > It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a moment to review the > draft (attached again) and, if appropriate, seek input from your > respective group by 13 September 2019. It would hopefully make our > discussion during the Council meeting more efficient. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Pam > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Sender:Flip Petillion > > Sent At:2019 Aug. 20 (Tue.) 16:47 > > Recipient:PAMELALITTLE ; > council at gnso.icann.org ; council < > council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> > > Cc:"Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." > > Subject:Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council > Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO > > > > Thank you Pam > > I have no comments. > Best regards, > > Flip > > > > Flip Petillion > > fpetillion at petillion.law > > +32484652653 > > www.petillion.law > > > > [petillion.law] > > > > > Attorneys ? Advocaten - Avocats > > > > > > > > > > *From: *council on behalf of Pam Little < > pam.little at alibaba-inc.com> > *Reply to: *Pam Little > *Date: *Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 02:42 > *To: *"council at gnso.icann.org" , council < > council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> > *Cc: *"Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." > *Subject: *Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO > Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO > > > > Dear Councilors, > > > > The small team would like to suggest some changes to the draft that was > sent to the Council list late July: > > > > #16 on DAAR and DNS abuse - In light of the on-going conversations within > the ICANN community, including a Plenary session on DNS Abuse to be held at > ICANN66, we've made some suggested edits to the proposed Council response > and new language to reflect this. > > > > #28 on cost-benefit analysis of TMCH - Staff recently clarified that the > RPM WG did not carry out a cost-benefit analysis. While this was one of the > specific Charter questions, Analysis Group's Final Report indicates that > their data did not provide quantifiable information to include such > analysis in its review. In light of this, we are suggesting a change to > the proposed Council response: > > > > * From*: The GNSO Council will seek feedback/comment from the RPM WG > whether its Phase 1 work has carried out a cost-benefit analysis consistent > with the scope described in this Recommendation #28. > > > > * To*: The GNSO Council will refer this recommendation to the RPM WG. > > > > A redline version is attached for your review. Please let us know if you > have any questions or comments. We look forward to discussing this > further at the upcoming Council meeting later this week. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Pam > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Sender:PAMELALITTLE > > Sent At:2019 Jul. 23 (Tue.) 16:31 > > Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org ; council < > council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> > > Cc:"Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez G." ; Carlos Raul > Gutierrez ; Michele Neylon - Blacknight < > michele at blacknight.com> > > Subject:For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to > CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO > > > > Dear Councilors, > > > > You may recall that the Council discussed this topic during the wrap-up > session in Marrakesh and the action item was for a small team (Carlos, > Michele and myself) to take a look at the 5 Recommendations that were > passed through to GNSO (see the message below from Larisa Gurnick forwarded > by Mary to Council). > > > > In addition, a number of Recommendations were passed through to gTLD > Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and/or Rights Protection Mechanisms > (RPM) PDP Working Group. In order to have a better picture of where all > the Recommendations passed to the GNSO and its PDPs stand, Keith is > planning to write to the leadership of the Working Groups seeking their > feedback. > > > > In the meantime, I attach an initial draft with the small team's proposed > GNSO Council response to those 5 Recommendations passed through directly to > the GNSO for your review and consideration. It is likely to be included in > our August Council meeting agenda so please take some time to consider the > proposed responses before the meeting. All feedback/comments/suggested > edits are welcome! > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Pam > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Sender:Mary Wong > > Sent At:2019 Jun. 10 (Mon.) 16:43 > > Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org > > Subject:[council] Message regarding CCT-RT recommendations > > > > Dear Councilors, > > > > I am forwarding the message below on behalf of Larisa Gurnick, > Vice-President in ICANN?s Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic > Initiatives (MSSI) department. You may recall that the Competition, > Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust Review Team?s (CCT-RT) final > recommendations included several that were directed at the GNSO Council. > This notification should provide you with additional information and > context for the ICANN Board?s action in respect of those recommendations. > > > > > > > > *Dear Members of the GNSO Council,* > > > > The purpose of this note is to highlight the Board resolution passed on 1 > March 2019 - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en > [icann.org] > > - that calls for a set of Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice > Review Team (CCT-RT) Final Recommendations to be passed through to > community groups. As articulated in the Board resolution, ?recognizing that > the Board has the obligation and responsibility to balance the work of > ICANN in order to preserve the ability for ICANN org to serve its Mission > and the public interest, the Board decided on three categories of action?: > > - Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation > considerations; > - Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status, > directing ICANN org to perform specific actions to enable the Board to > take further actions; > - Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups > the CCT-RT identified for their consideration. The Board noted fourteen > such recommendations (9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, > 35). > > > > We invite you to refer to pages 1-4 of the scorecard > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs > -scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org] > > which compile pass-through recommendations, including the groups they are > addressed to. > > > > Accordingly, ICANN org wishes to notify you of the recommendations the > ICANN Board resolved to pass through to you, in whole or in part, for your > consideration: > > > > - *Recommendation 10*. > - *Recommendation 16 (in part)* Note: this recommendation was also > passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, Registries > Stakeholder Group, Registrar Stakeholder Group, Generic Names Supporting > Organization, Second Security, Stability & Resiliency of DNS Review Team as > suggested by the CCT-RT. In the scorecard, the Board noted that ?it is not > accepting the policy directives that may be inherent here but rather, > passes on such elements of the recommendation to the relevant community > groups to consider?. > - *Recommendation 27*. > - *Recommendation 28*. > - *Recommendation 29*. Note: this recommendation was also passed > through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, as suggested by the > CCT-RT. To inform work relating to recommendations 29 and 30, the ICANN > Board suggested that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take > on, ?should they choose to do so, defining the term ?Global South? or > agreeing on another term to describe underserved or underrepresented > regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN org?*.* > > > > We would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: > ?in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting, > nor rejecting the recommendations. [?] Passing recommendations through to > community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should > formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is > within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on > and the topics that the group will address?*.* > > As indicated in the resolution, the Board encourages community groups to > be ?mindful of any interdependencies with ongoing work and discussions?. > Additionally,the Board suggests ?to the referenced community groups that > the CCT-RT's proposed priority levels be taken into account as the groups > decide whether, how and when to address the CCT-RT recommendations that are > being passed through [?]?*.* > > Additionally, we would like to flag the Board suggestion that for > transparency purposes, ?it would be helpful to have records or reporting > made available to the ICANN community on how the community group considered > the items coming out of the CCT-RT. The Board encourages any level of > reporting that the groups are able to provide as the ICANN org and Board > track action on the CCT-RT's recommendations?. Please consider providing > updates on your progress in addressing (as appropriate) these > recommendations, to be included with ICANN org?s reporting. > > > > *Background* > > The Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) > released its Final Report on 8 September 2018 ? see > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf > [icann.org] > . > The CCT-RT Final Report contains 35 recommendations and is the culmination > of nearly three years of work, reviewing how the expansion of top-level > domain names impacted competition, consumer trust and choice. For more > information on the CCT Review and Specific Reviews, please read https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article4.6 > [icann.org] > > . > > > > The ICANN Board took action on each of the 35 recommendations produced by > the CCT-RT - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en > [icann.org] > > - on 1 March 2019 and was informed by public comment input received on the > Final report (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-final-recs-2018-10-08-en > [icann.org] > > ). > > The Board?s decisions on each recommendation is documented in the > scorecard published at > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs > -scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org] > . > A blog post on the Board action can be found at https://www.icann.org/news/blog/board-action-on-competition-consumer-trust-and-consumer-choice-review > [icann.org] > > for more context. > > > > We thank you for your collaboration in considering the CCT-RT output. > Please let us know whether you have any questions. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Best regards*.* > > > > Larisa Gurnick > > Vice-President, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives, ICANN > > > > > > > > > > > Through to GNSO_revised_15August2019.docx> > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your > personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance > with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=RE22OFJbx8_qCz9fmVxjYD5bSBWSra5Fht1r_CAvFp4&e= > ) and the website Terms of Service ( > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=ZfTZxU0UZbd1AfNvK-d8E_O17i2IASh4IWsYKLBZmu4&e= > ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or > configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or > disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Sep 17 05:39:02 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:39:02 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call 18th Sept In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I am sharing here the NCSG Policy call draft agenda scheduled in Wednesday 18th September. For council agenda, we don't have any motion to vote for this time too. However, we have several topics for discussion and document to review. I am asking everyone to review the proposals. We have in particular the addendum for RPM/IGO and the letters e.g. thick whois referral Please review and feel free to suggest addition/amendment to the agenda, also under "others". I. Introduction II. GNSO Council Call Preparation - Council agenda: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/agenda/agenda-council-19sep19-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 carlosraul at gutierrez.se Wed Sep 18 05:13:26 2019 From: carlosraul at gutierrez.se (Carlos Raul Gutierrez) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:13:26 -0600 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call 18th July In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5be0c3c1b29c48672ee98c95383e2089@gutierrez.se> Thank you Rafik. Please provide the Zoom link for the call as well. Thanks --- Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez carlosraul at gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2019-07-15 18:05, Rafik Dammak escribi?: > Hi all, > > I am sharing here the NCSG Policy call draft agenda scheduled in Wednesday 17th July. > > For council agenda, we don't have motion to vote other the one for the response to GAC communique which draft is still being edited and so need to be carefully reviewed. > We got several topics for discussion such as the response to board resolution on epdp phase 1 recommendations and ICANN letter regarding data accuracy for EPDP. Both are critical and have to some extent impact on phase 2 workload and scope. For accuracy issue, the request was passed to EPDP team for input and I expect that our reps there will give some guidance. > Another topic of interest will be the follow-up of pre-metting policy webinar as we got some "asks" from PDP WG leadership in particular subpro. > > Please review and feel free to suggest addition/amendment to the agenda. > > I. Introduction > II. GNSO Council Call Preparation > > * Council agenda: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/agenda/draft-agenda-gnso-council-18jul2019-en.pdf > > III. Policy Update > > - Policy topics: > > * PDPs & Review Teams Update > - Public comments status: https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public & list of volunteers https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2019 > > IV. Others > - > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Wed Sep 18 17:46:31 2019 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:46:31 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call 18th July In-Reply-To: <5be0c3c1b29c48672ee98c95383e2089@gutierrez.se> References: <5be0c3c1b29c48672ee98c95383e2089@gutierrez.se> Message-ID: Sorry all, I won?t be able to join, going to listen afterwards and follow any concern or comment in the list. Best, Mart?n > On 17 Sep 2019, at 23:13, Carlos Raul Gutierrez wrote: > > Thank you Rafik. Please provide the Zoom link for the call as well. Thanks > > --- > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > carlosraul at gutierrez.se > +506 8837 7176 > Aparatado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > > > > El 2019-07-15 18:05, Rafik Dammak escribi?: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am sharing here the NCSG Policy call draft agenda scheduled in Wednesday 17th July. >> >> For council agenda, we don't have motion to vote other the one for the response to GAC communique which draft is still being edited and so need to be carefully reviewed. >> We got several topics for discussion such as the response to board resolution on epdp phase 1 recommendations and ICANN letter regarding data accuracy for EPDP. Both are critical and have to some extent impact on phase 2 workload and scope. For accuracy issue, the request was passed to EPDP team for input and I expect that our reps there will give some guidance. >> Another topic of interest will be the follow-up of pre-metting policy webinar as we got some "asks" from PDP WG leadership in particular subpro. >> >> Please review and feel free to suggest addition/amendment to the agenda. >> >> I. Introduction >> II. GNSO Council Call Preparation >> Council agenda: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/agenda/draft-agenda-gnso-council-18jul2019-en.pdf >> III. Policy Update >> - Policy topics: >> * PDPs & Review Teams Update >> - Public comments status: https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public & list of volunteers https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2019 >> >> IV. Others >> - >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Sep 18 20:13:56 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 17:13:56 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call 18th July In-Reply-To: References: <5be0c3c1b29c48672ee98c95383e2089@gutierrez.se> Message-ID: <06087c89-1f58-27cb-940a-9c5958069092@mail.utoronto.ca> My apologies for missing the call, I had house guests. My the transcripts from Zoom are hilarious. I have not finished listening to the call yet, but I should have requested your decision on our recommendation (from NCPH) re the Counci Chair. We have alread y heard rom the BC, IPC, and ISPC....they support Keith Drazek. I suggest we do the same. Deadline for our recommendation is the 20th. Cheers Stephanie On 2019-09-18 10:46, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: Sorry all, I won?t be able to join, going to listen afterwards and follow any concern or comment in the list. Best, Mart?n On 17 Sep 2019, at 23:13, Carlos Raul Gutierrez > wrote: Thank you Rafik. Please provide the Zoom link for the call as well. Thanks --- Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez carlosraul at gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2019-07-15 18:05, Rafik Dammak escribi?: Hi all, I am sharing here the NCSG Policy call draft agenda scheduled in Wednesday 17th July. For council agenda, we don't have motion to vote other the one for the response to GAC communique which draft is still being edited and so need to be carefully reviewed. We got several topics for discussion such as the response to board resolution on epdp phase 1 recommendations and ICANN letter regarding data accuracy for EPDP. Both are critical and have to some extent impact on phase 2 workload and scope. For accuracy issue, the request was passed to EPDP team for input and I expect that our reps there will give some guidance. Another topic of interest will be the follow-up of pre-metting policy webinar as we got some "asks" from PDP WG leadership in particular subpro. Please review and feel free to suggest addition/amendment to the agenda. I. Introduction II. GNSO Council Call Preparation * Council agenda: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/agenda/draft-agenda-gnso-council-18jul2019-en.pdf III. Policy Update - Policy topics: * PDPs & Review Teams Update - Public comments status: https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public & list of volunteers https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2019 IV. Others - Best Regards, Rafik _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Wed Sep 18 21:48:38 2019 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 20:48:38 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call 18th July In-Reply-To: <06087c89-1f58-27cb-940a-9c5958069092@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <5be0c3c1b29c48672ee98c95383e2089@gutierrez.se> <06087c89-1f58-27cb-940a-9c5958069092@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I have no objection to that, unless we have better suggestion and are able to bring everyone else in! On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 7:14 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > My apologies for missing the call, I had house guests. My the transcripts > from Zoom are hilarious. > > I have not finished listening to the call yet, but I should have requested > your decision on our recommendation (from NCPH) re the Counci Chair. We > have alread y heard rom the BC, IPC, and ISPC....they support Keith > Drazek. I suggest we do the same. > > Deadline for our recommendation is the 20th. > > Cheers > > Stephanie > On 2019-09-18 10:46, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > > Sorry all, I won?t be able to join, going to listen afterwards and follow > any concern or comment in the list. > > Best, > Mart?n > > On 17 Sep 2019, at 23:13, Carlos Raul Gutierrez > wrote: > > Thank you Rafik. Please provide the Zoom link for the call as well. Thanks > --- > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > carlosraul at gutierrez.se > +506 8837 7176 > Aparatado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > > > El 2019-07-15 18:05, Rafik Dammak escribi?: > > Hi all, > > I am sharing here the NCSG Policy call draft agenda scheduled in Wednesday > 17th July. > > For council agenda, we don't have motion to vote other the one for the > response to GAC communique which draft is still being edited and so need to > be carefully reviewed. > We got several topics for discussion such as the response to board > resolution on epdp phase 1 recommendations and ICANN letter regarding data > accuracy for EPDP. Both are critical and have to some extent impact on > phase 2 workload and scope. For accuracy issue, the request was passed to > EPDP team for input and I expect that our reps there will give some > guidance. > Another topic of interest will be the follow-up of pre-metting policy > webinar as we got some "asks" from PDP WG leadership in particular subpro. > > Please review and feel free to suggest addition/amendment to the agenda. > > I. Introduction > II. GNSO Council Call Preparation > > - Council agenda: > https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/agenda/draft-agenda-gnso-council-18jul2019-en.pdf > > > III. Policy Update > - Policy topics: > * PDPs & Review Teams Update > - Public comments status: > https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public & list of volunteers > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2019 > > > IV. Others > - > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > 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 listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Sep 19 03:56:34 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:56:34 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Draft Agenda for NCSG Monthly Policy Call 18th July In-Reply-To: <06087c89-1f58-27cb-940a-9c5958069092@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <5be0c3c1b29c48672ee98c95383e2089@gutierrez.se> <06087c89-1f58-27cb-940a-9c5958069092@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, thanks for the note. when did you get the notification about the chair election since the deadline is this Friday? we don't have any candidate and there is no chance anyway to get nomination from CSG and winning against incumbent. Best, Rafik Le jeu. 19 sept. 2019 ? 02:14, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > My apologies for missing the call, I had house guests. My the transcripts > from Zoom are hilarious. > > I have not finished listening to the call yet, but I should have requested > your decision on our recommendation (from NCPH) re the Counci Chair. We > have alread y heard rom the BC, IPC, and ISPC....they support Keith > Drazek. I suggest we do the same. > > Deadline for our recommendation is the 20th. > > Cheers > > Stephanie > On 2019-09-18 10:46, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > > Sorry all, I won?t be able to join, going to listen afterwards and follow > any concern or comment in the list. > > Best, > Mart?n > > On 17 Sep 2019, at 23:13, Carlos Raul Gutierrez > wrote: > > Thank you Rafik. Please provide the Zoom link for the call as well. Thanks > --- > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > carlosraul at gutierrez.se > +506 8837 7176 > Aparatado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > > > El 2019-07-15 18:05, Rafik Dammak escribi?: > > Hi all, > > I am sharing here the NCSG Policy call draft agenda scheduled in Wednesday > 17th July. > > For council agenda, we don't have motion to vote other the one for the > response to GAC communique which draft is still being edited and so need to > be carefully reviewed. > We got several topics for discussion such as the response to board > resolution on epdp phase 1 recommendations and ICANN letter regarding data > accuracy for EPDP. Both are critical and have to some extent impact on > phase 2 workload and scope. For accuracy issue, the request was passed to > EPDP team for input and I expect that our reps there will give some > guidance. > Another topic of interest will be the follow-up of pre-metting policy > webinar as we got some "asks" from PDP WG leadership in particular subpro. > > Please review and feel free to suggest addition/amendment to the agenda. > > I. Introduction > II. GNSO Council Call Preparation > > - Council agenda: > https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/agenda/draft-agenda-gnso-council-18jul2019-en.pdf > > > III. Policy Update > - Policy topics: > * PDPs & Review Teams Update > - Public comments status: > https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public & list of volunteers > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2019 > > > IV. Others > - > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > 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 listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Sep 20 16:22:32 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:22:32 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] GNSO chair nomination In-Reply-To: References: <5be0c3c1b29c48672ee98c95383e2089@gutierrez.se> <06087c89-1f58-27cb-940a-9c5958069092@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi all, the deadline for nomination for NCPH is today. I don't think we have any interested candidate and we should respond asap. if there is no objection within today, we should respond to CSG and to confirm with GNSO secretariat. Best. Rafik Le jeu. 19 sept. 2019 ? 09:56, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > Hi Stephanie, > > thanks for the note. > when did you get the notification about the chair election since the > deadline is this Friday? > we don't have any candidate and there is no chance anyway to get > nomination from CSG and winning against incumbent. > > Best, > > Rafik > Le jeu. 19 sept. 2019 ? 02:14, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > >> My apologies for missing the call, I had house guests. My the >> transcripts from Zoom are hilarious. >> >> I have not finished listening to the call yet, but I should have >> requested your decision on our recommendation (from NCPH) re the Counci >> Chair. We have alread y heard rom the BC, IPC, and ISPC....they support >> Keith Drazek. I suggest we do the same. >> >> Deadline for our recommendation is the 20th. >> >> Cheers >> >> Stephanie >> On 2019-09-18 10:46, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >> >> Sorry all, I won?t be able to join, going to listen afterwards and follow >> any concern or comment in the list. >> >> Best, >> Mart?n >> >> On 17 Sep 2019, at 23:13, Carlos Raul Gutierrez >> wrote: >> >> Thank you Rafik. Please provide the Zoom link for the call as well. Thanks >> --- >> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >> +506 8837 7176 >> Aparatado 1571-1000 >> COSTA RICA >> >> >> >> El 2019-07-15 18:05, Rafik Dammak escribi?: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am sharing here the NCSG Policy call draft agenda scheduled in >> Wednesday 17th July. >> >> For council agenda, we don't have motion to vote other the one for the >> response to GAC communique which draft is still being edited and so need to >> be carefully reviewed. >> We got several topics for discussion such as the response to board >> resolution on epdp phase 1 recommendations and ICANN letter regarding data >> accuracy for EPDP. Both are critical and have to some extent impact on >> phase 2 workload and scope. For accuracy issue, the request was passed to >> EPDP team for input and I expect that our reps there will give some >> guidance. >> Another topic of interest will be the follow-up of pre-metting policy >> webinar as we got some "asks" from PDP WG leadership in particular subpro. >> >> Please review and feel free to suggest addition/amendment to the agenda. >> >> I. Introduction >> II. GNSO Council Call Preparation >> >> - Council agenda: >> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/agenda/draft-agenda-gnso-council-18jul2019-en.pdf >> >> >> III. Policy Update >> - Policy topics: >> * PDPs & Review Teams Update >> - Public comments status: >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public & list of volunteers >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2019 >> >> >> IV. Others >> - >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 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 carlosraul at gutierrez.se Fri Sep 20 16:36:26 2019 From: carlosraul at gutierrez.se (Carlos Raul Gutierrez) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 07:36:26 -0600 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] GNSO chair nomination In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Sep 20 17:15:45 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 23:15:45 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?q?Feedback_on_the_ICANN_Board=E2=80=99s_Propose?= =?utf-8?q?d_Public_Interest_Framework?= Message-ID: Hi all, please find below the info about the community consultation on the Global Public Interest framework. We should draft our response to the questions listed below. I will share later the details in NCSG list. Best Regards, Rafik =========================================================== >From 18 September ? 18 October 2019, a community consultation is taking place on the global public interest framework proposed by the ICANN Board. In reviewing the proposal, the ICANN Board is asking the ICANN community to consider the following questions for input to the ICANN Board: 1. What are your thoughts on the proposed framework approach? Do you have any suggestions for how it could be improved? 2. What are your thoughts on the proposed approach for decisions in the ICANN ecosystem to be accompanied by a consideration of their impact on the global public interest (as well as an explanation regarding what is meant by the GPI in the specific case)? 3. How do you see this working for the Supporting Organization (SO), Advisory Committee (AC), constituency, group, review team, or cross-community working group (CCWG) to which you are contributing? The global public interest is central to many of ICANN?s primary governance documents, and the ICANN Board hopes to play a role in facilitating a bottom-up, community-driven process to develop a framework as a toolkit for the ICANN community to consider the global public interest. These considerations would not change the process by which decisions are made but could instead serve as tools for the community to reinforce the commitment to the public interest and to demonstrate how specific recommendations, advice, and public comments are in the global public interest. This includes the ICANN community guiding the ICANN Board about the public interest determination the latter must make in its decisions. To learn more about the framework, please read the discussion paper [r20.rs6.net] . Community feedback is welcome by *Friday, 18 October 2019 via email at **gpitoolkit at icann.org *. After the community consultation, there will be a public session at ICANN66, followed by a Public Comment proceeding. For more information, visit: *https://go.icann.org/2kMb7RB *. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Fri Sep 20 17:42:25 2019 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 16:42:25 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] GNSO chair nomination In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My support for the approach! 2019-09-20 15:36 UTC+02:00, Carlos Raul Gutierrez : > +1 > Agree > > Thanks! Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > > El 20 sep. 2019 07:22, Rafik Dammak escribi?: >> >> Hi all, >> >> the deadline for nomination for NCPH is today. >> I don't think we have any interested candidate? and we should respond >> asap. >> if there is no objection within today, we should respond to CSG and to >> confirm with GNSO secretariat. >> >> Best. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> Le?jeu. 19 sept. 2019 ??09:56, Rafik Dammak a >> ?crit?: >>> >>> Hi Stephanie, >>> >>> thanks for the note. >>> when did you get the notification about the chair election since the >>> deadline is this Friday? >>> we don't have any candidate and there is no chance anyway to get >>> nomination from CSG and winning against?incumbent. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> Le?jeu. 19 sept. 2019 ??02:14, Stephanie Perrin >>> a ?crit?: >>>> >>>> My apologies for missing the call, I had house guests.? My the >>>> transcripts from Zoom are hilarious. >>>> >>>> I have not finished listening to the call yet, but I should have >>>> requested your decision on our recommendation (from NCPH) re the Counci >>>> Chair.? We have alread y heard rom the BC, IPC, and ISPC....they support >>>> Keith Drazek.? I suggest we do the same. >>>> >>>> Deadline for our recommendation is the 20th. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Stephanie >>>> >>>> On 2019-09-18 10:46, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Sorry all, I won?t be able to join, going to listen afterwards and >>>>> follow any concern or comment in the list. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Mart?n >>>>> >>>>>> On 17 Sep 2019, at 23:13, Carlos Raul Gutierrez >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Rafik. Please provide the Zoom link for the call as well. >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>>>>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >>>>>> +506 8837 7176 >>>>>> Aparatado 1571-1000 >>>>>> COSTA RICA >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> El 2019-07-15 18:05, Rafik Dammak escribi?: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am sharing here the NCSG Policy call draft agenda scheduled in >>>>>>> Wednesday 17th July. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For council agenda, we don't have motion to vote other the one for >>>>>>> the response to GAC communique which draft is still being edited and >>>>>>> so need to be carefully reviewed. >>>>>>> We got several topics for discussion such as the response to board >>>>>>> resolution on epdp phase 1 recommendations and ICANN letter regarding >>>>>>> data accuracy for EPDP. Both are critical and have to some extent >>>>>>> impact on phase 2 workload and scope. For accuracy issue, the request >>>>>>> was passed to EPDP team for input and I expect that our reps there >>>>>>> will give some guidance. >>>>>>> Another topic of interest will be the follow-up of pre-metting policy >>>>>>> webinar as we got some "asks" from PDP WG leadership in particular >>>>>>> subpro. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please review and feel free to suggest? addition/amendment to the >>>>>>> agenda. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I. Introduction >>>>>>> II. GNSO Council Call Preparation >>>>>>> Council agenda: >>>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/agenda/draft-agenda-gnso-council-18jul2019-en.pdf >>>>>>> III. Policy Update >>>>>>> -?Policy?topics: >>>>>>> ? * PDPs & Review Teams Update >>>>>>> - Public comments status: >>>>>>> ?https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public? &?list of >>>>>>> volunteers?https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2019 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IV. Others >>>>>>> ? ? - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -- ------------------------ **Ars?ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) GPG: 523644A0 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow < http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member Member. UN IGF MAG Member From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Sep 20 19:02:40 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 16:02:40 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?q?Feedback_on_the_ICANN_Board=E2=80=99s_Propos?= =?utf-8?q?ed_Public_Interest_Framework?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for flagging this, Rafik. How on earth were we meant to find it? What happened to using the public comments page as a hub for collecting community input? It is disappointing how ICANN org disrespects the community all the time by running these sham consultations. We have said repeatedly that consultation opportunities should not be hidden in blog posts. Now, they're hidden in obscure wiki pages. Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Friday, 20 September 2019 16:15, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > please find below the info about the community consultation on the Global Public Interest framework. We should draft our response to the questions listed below. I will share later the details in NCSG list. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > =========================================================== > > From 18 September ? 18 October 2019, a community consultation is taking place on the global public interest framework proposed by the ICANN Board. In reviewing the proposal, the ICANN Board is asking the ICANN community to consider the following questions for input to the ICANN Board: > > 1. What are your thoughts on the proposed framework approach? Do you have any suggestions for how it could be improved? > > 2. What are your thoughts on the proposed approach for decisions in the ICANN ecosystem to be accompanied by a consideration of their impact on the global public interest (as well as an explanation regarding what is meant by the GPI in the specific case)? > > 3. How do you see this working for the Supporting Organization (SO), Advisory Committee (AC), constituency, group, review team, or cross-community working group (CCWG) to which you are contributing? > > The global public interest is central to many of ICANN?s primary governance documents, and the ICANN Board hopes to play a role in facilitating a bottom-up, community-driven process to develop a framework as a toolkit for the ICANN community to consider the global public interest. These considerations would not change the process by which decisions are made but could instead serve as tools for the community to reinforce the commitment to the public interest and to demonstrate how specific recommendations, advice, and public comments are in the global public interest. This includes the ICANN community guiding the ICANN Board about the public interest determination the latter must make in its decisions. > > To learn more about the framework, please read the [discussion paper [r20.rs6.net]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D0014631p6ECz1koeg6ajMSzZrFT7DO05069BKNDJvhNpKDU-2D38mdcxCqJ1EJzj5gscgfkGfGj-2DFGI3o7d-5FcGAxvEYcLuDt-2DuNbFw7pLtAPwsOOBVyljJ-5FnOUkAdXGEq-5Fpqhnx9MAz7aDEHi3hvOaYb3gqWjXDXghZrpf0Ca1iUZzXdnGBbim2ZY09p7WU0m-2DXOMIhpn2CTVR7lR4v-2DDeX-5F4RZFHV0Vx2gnIRwJwkZKqQoiglVM4l6PG-2Df7xB-5FIkXMVwTDMtu5FHvXFhlTLLJIN5Jg-3D-3D-26c-3Dz44JySTIvEGqNJPIjwWImwF59dG21I-2DoxnM1Mz6G5PmaucLg5GaW-5Fg-3D-3D-26ch-3DFcbT1z5bmkz6UEfk6eUJehq3ywPR-5FHTaxr7BzhY6q17TcrAkO831rw-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=Zrm2TmioSoHmD-RVsf08eb9s33A4I2k08_uP0LOo_zA&s=Y1oSQaaaH67cndtqhCcGryOkThAU0RpFNJVzZzD0mGc&e=). Community feedback is welcome by Friday, 18 October 2019 via email at gpitoolkit at icann.org. After the community consultation, there will be a public session at ICANN66, followed by a Public Comment proceeding. > > For more information, visit: https://go.icann.org/2kMb7RB. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Fri Sep 20 19:51:46 2019 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:51:46 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] GNSO chair nomination In-Reply-To: References: <5be0c3c1b29c48672ee98c95383e2089@gutierrez.se> <06087c89-1f58-27cb-940a-9c5958069092@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <0010E56E-D0EA-471B-9AA6-8D9D065826BD@gmail.com> Seems reasonable. Best, Martin > On 20 Sep 2019, at 10:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > the deadline for nomination for NCPH is today. > I don't think we have any interested candidate and we should respond asap. > if there is no objection within today, we should respond to CSG and to confirm with GNSO secretariat. > > Best. > > Rafik > > > Le jeu. 19 sept. 2019 ? 09:56, Rafik Dammak > a ?crit : > Hi Stephanie, > > thanks for the note. > when did you get the notification about the chair election since the deadline is this Friday? > we don't have any candidate and there is no chance anyway to get nomination from CSG and winning against incumbent. > > Best, > > Rafik > Le jeu. 19 sept. 2019 ? 02:14, Stephanie Perrin > a ?crit : > My apologies for missing the call, I had house guests. My the transcripts from Zoom are hilarious. > > I have not finished listening to the call yet, but I should have requested your decision on our recommendation (from NCPH) re the Counci Chair. We have alread y heard rom the BC, IPC, and ISPC....they support Keith Drazek. I suggest we do the same. > > Deadline for our recommendation is the 20th. > > Cheers > > Stephanie > > On 2019-09-18 10:46, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >> Sorry all, I won?t be able to join, going to listen afterwards and follow any concern or comment in the list. >> >> Best, >> Mart?n >> >>> On 17 Sep 2019, at 23:13, Carlos Raul Gutierrez > wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Rafik. Please provide the Zoom link for the call as well. Thanks >>> >>> --- >>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >>> +506 8837 7176 >>> Aparatado 1571-1000 >>> COSTA RICA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> El 2019-07-15 18:05, Rafik Dammak escribi?: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I am sharing here the NCSG Policy call draft agenda scheduled in Wednesday 17th July. >>>> >>>> For council agenda, we don't have motion to vote other the one for the response to GAC communique which draft is still being edited and so need to be carefully reviewed. >>>> We got several topics for discussion such as the response to board resolution on epdp phase 1 recommendations and ICANN letter regarding data accuracy for EPDP. Both are critical and have to some extent impact on phase 2 workload and scope. For accuracy issue, the request was passed to EPDP team for input and I expect that our reps there will give some guidance. >>>> Another topic of interest will be the follow-up of pre-metting policy webinar as we got some "asks" from PDP WG leadership in particular subpro. >>>> >>>> Please review and feel free to suggest addition/amendment to the agenda. >>>> >>>> I. Introduction >>>> II. GNSO Council Call Preparation >>>> Council agenda: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/agenda/draft-agenda-gnso-council-18jul2019-en.pdf >>>> III. Policy Update >>>> - Policy topics: >>>> * PDPs & Review Teams Update >>>> - Public comments status: https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public & list of volunteers https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2019 >>>> >>>> IV. Others >>>> - >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Fri Sep 20 20:34:20 2019 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 19:34:20 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] GNSO chair nomination In-Reply-To: <0010E56E-D0EA-471B-9AA6-8D9D065826BD@gmail.com> References: <5be0c3c1b29c48672ee98c95383e2089@gutierrez.se> <06087c89-1f58-27cb-940a-9c5958069092@mail.utoronto.ca> <0010E56E-D0EA-471B-9AA6-8D9D065826BD@gmail.com> Message-ID: Very reasonable. Cheers Tanya On Fri 20. Sep 2019 at 18:51, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > Seems reasonable. > > Best, > Martin > > On 20 Sep 2019, at 10:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > the deadline for nomination for NCPH is today. > I don't think we have any interested candidate and we should respond asap. > if there is no objection within today, we should respond to CSG and to > confirm with GNSO secretariat. > > Best. > > Rafik > > > Le jeu. 19 sept. 2019 ? 09:56, Rafik Dammak a > ?crit : > >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> thanks for the note. >> when did you get the notification about the chair election since the >> deadline is this Friday? >> we don't have any candidate and there is no chance anyway to get >> nomination from CSG and winning against incumbent. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> Le jeu. 19 sept. 2019 ? 02:14, Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : >> >>> My apologies for missing the call, I had house guests. My the >>> transcripts from Zoom are hilarious. >>> >>> I have not finished listening to the call yet, but I should have >>> requested your decision on our recommendation (from NCPH) re the Counci >>> Chair. We have alread y heard rom the BC, IPC, and ISPC....they support >>> Keith Drazek. I suggest we do the same. >>> >>> Deadline for our recommendation is the 20th. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Stephanie >>> On 2019-09-18 10:46, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >>> >>> Sorry all, I won?t be able to join, going to listen afterwards and >>> follow any concern or comment in the list. >>> >>> Best, >>> Mart?n >>> >>> On 17 Sep 2019, at 23:13, Carlos Raul Gutierrez >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Rafik. Please provide the Zoom link for the call as well. >>> Thanks >>> --- >>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >>> +506 8837 7176 >>> Aparatado 1571-1000 >>> COSTA RICA >>> >>> >>> >>> El 2019-07-15 18:05, Rafik Dammak escribi?: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am sharing here the NCSG Policy call draft agenda scheduled in >>> Wednesday 17th July. >>> >>> For council agenda, we don't have motion to vote other the one for the >>> response to GAC communique which draft is still being edited and so need to >>> be carefully reviewed. >>> We got several topics for discussion such as the response to board >>> resolution on epdp phase 1 recommendations and ICANN letter regarding data >>> accuracy for EPDP. Both are critical and have to some extent impact on >>> phase 2 workload and scope. For accuracy issue, the request was passed to >>> EPDP team for input and I expect that our reps there will give some >>> guidance. >>> Another topic of interest will be the follow-up of pre-metting policy >>> webinar as we got some "asks" from PDP WG leadership in particular subpro. >>> >>> Please review and feel free to suggest addition/amendment to the >>> agenda. >>> >>> I. Introduction >>> II. GNSO Council Call Preparation >>> >>> - Council agenda: >>> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/agenda/draft-agenda-gnso-council-18jul2019-en.pdf >>> >>> >>> III. Policy Update >>> - Policy topics: >>> * PDPs & Review Teams Update >>> - Public comments status: >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public & list of volunteers >>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2019 >>> >>> >>> IV. Others >>> - >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Sep 21 01:21:09 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 07:21:09 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] GNSO chair nomination In-Reply-To: References: <5be0c3c1b29c48672ee98c95383e2089@gutierrez.se> <06087c89-1f58-27cb-940a-9c5958069092@mail.utoronto.ca> <0010E56E-D0EA-471B-9AA6-8D9D065826BD@gmail.com> Message-ID: thanks all, I just responded to CSG and GNSO secretariat since the deadline for nomination is less than 2 hours away. have a nice weekend. Best, Rafik Le sam. 21 sept. 2019 ? 02:34, Tatiana Tropina a ?crit : > Very reasonable. > Cheers > Tanya > > On Fri 20. Sep 2019 at 18:51, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < > mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Seems reasonable. >> >> Best, >> Martin >> >> On 20 Sep 2019, at 10:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> the deadline for nomination for NCPH is today. >> I don't think we have any interested candidate and we should respond >> asap. >> if there is no objection within today, we should respond to CSG and to >> confirm with GNSO secretariat. >> >> Best. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> Le jeu. 19 sept. 2019 ? 09:56, Rafik Dammak a >> ?crit : >> >>> Hi Stephanie, >>> >>> thanks for the note. >>> when did you get the notification about the chair election since the >>> deadline is this Friday? >>> we don't have any candidate and there is no chance anyway to get >>> nomination from CSG and winning against incumbent. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> Le jeu. 19 sept. 2019 ? 02:14, Stephanie Perrin < >>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : >>> >>>> My apologies for missing the call, I had house guests. My the >>>> transcripts from Zoom are hilarious. >>>> >>>> I have not finished listening to the call yet, but I should have >>>> requested your decision on our recommendation (from NCPH) re the Counci >>>> Chair. We have alread y heard rom the BC, IPC, and ISPC....they support >>>> Keith Drazek. I suggest we do the same. >>>> >>>> Deadline for our recommendation is the 20th. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Stephanie >>>> On 2019-09-18 10:46, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: >>>> >>>> Sorry all, I won?t be able to join, going to listen afterwards and >>>> follow any concern or comment in the list. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Mart?n >>>> >>>> On 17 Sep 2019, at 23:13, Carlos Raul Gutierrez < >>>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thank you Rafik. Please provide the Zoom link for the call as well. >>>> Thanks >>>> --- >>>> Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez >>>> carlosraul at gutierrez.se >>>> +506 8837 7176 >>>> Aparatado 1571-1000 >>>> COSTA RICA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> El 2019-07-15 18:05, Rafik Dammak escribi?: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I am sharing here the NCSG Policy call draft agenda scheduled in >>>> Wednesday 17th July. >>>> >>>> For council agenda, we don't have motion to vote other the one for the >>>> response to GAC communique which draft is still being edited and so need to >>>> be carefully reviewed. >>>> We got several topics for discussion such as the response to board >>>> resolution on epdp phase 1 recommendations and ICANN letter regarding data >>>> accuracy for EPDP. Both are critical and have to some extent impact on >>>> phase 2 workload and scope. For accuracy issue, the request was passed to >>>> EPDP team for input and I expect that our reps there will give some >>>> guidance. >>>> Another topic of interest will be the follow-up of pre-metting policy >>>> webinar as we got some "asks" from PDP WG leadership in particular subpro. >>>> >>>> Please review and feel free to suggest addition/amendment to the >>>> agenda. >>>> >>>> I. Introduction >>>> II. GNSO Council Call Preparation >>>> >>>> - Council agenda: >>>> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/agenda/draft-agenda-gnso-council-18jul2019-en.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> III. Policy Update >>>> - Policy topics: >>>> * PDPs & Review Teams Update >>>> - Public comments status: >>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public & list of >>>> volunteers >>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2019 >>>> >>>> >>>> IV. Others >>>> - >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carlosraul at gutierrez.se Sat Sep 21 02:57:04 2019 From: carlosraul at gutierrez.se (Carlos Raul Gutierrez) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 17:57:04 -0600 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] GNSO chair nomination In-Reply-To: References: <5be0c3c1b29c48672ee98c95383e2089@gutierrez.se> <06087c89-1f58-27cb-940a-9c5958069092@mail.utoronto.ca> <0010E56E-D0EA-471B-9AA6-8D9D065826BD@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks to you Rafik. Have a nice Weekend! --- Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez carlosraul at gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2019-09-20 16:21, Rafik Dammak escribi?: > thanks all, I just responded to CSG and GNSO secretariat since the deadline for nomination is less than 2 hours away. > have a nice weekend. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le sam. 21 sept. 2019 ? 02:34, Tatiana Tropina a ?crit : > > Very reasonable. > Cheers > Tanya > > On Fri 20. Sep 2019 at 18:51, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > > Seems reasonable. > > Best, > Martin > > On 20 Sep 2019, at 10:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > the deadline for nomination for NCPH is today. > I don't think we have any interested candidate and we should respond asap. > if there is no objection within today, we should respond to CSG and to confirm with GNSO secretariat. > > Best. > > Rafik > > Le jeu. 19 sept. 2019 ? 09:56, Rafik Dammak a ?crit : > > Hi Stephanie, > > thanks for the note. > when did you get the notification about the chair election since the deadline is this Friday? > we don't have any candidate and there is no chance anyway to get nomination from CSG and winning against incumbent. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Le jeu. 19 sept. 2019 ? 02:14, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : > > My apologies for missing the call, I had house guests. My the transcripts from Zoom are hilarious. > > I have not finished listening to the call yet, but I should have requested your decision on our recommendation (from NCPH) re the Counci Chair. We have alread y heard rom the BC, IPC, and ISPC....they support Keith Drazek. I suggest we do the same. > > Deadline for our recommendation is the 20th. > > Cheers > > Stephanie > > On 2019-09-18 10:46, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: Sorry all, I won't be able to join, going to listen afterwards and follow any concern or comment in the list. > > Best, > Mart?n > > On 17 Sep 2019, at 23:13, Carlos Raul Gutierrez wrote: > > Thank you Rafik. Please provide the Zoom link for the call as well. Thanks > > --- > Carlos Ra?l Guti?rrez > carlosraul at gutierrez.se > +506 8837 7176 > Aparatado 1571-1000 > COSTA RICA > > El 2019-07-15 18:05, Rafik Dammak escribi?: > > Hi all, > > I am sharing here the NCSG Policy call draft agenda scheduled in Wednesday 17th July. > > For council agenda, we don't have motion to vote other the one for the response to GAC communique which draft is still being edited and so need to be carefully reviewed. > We got several topics for discussion such as the response to board resolution on epdp phase 1 recommendations and ICANN letter regarding data accuracy for EPDP. Both are critical and have to some extent impact on phase 2 workload and scope. For accuracy issue, the request was passed to EPDP team for input and I expect that our reps there will give some guidance. > Another topic of interest will be the follow-up of pre-metting policy webinar as we got some "asks" from PDP WG leadership in particular subpro. > > Please review and feel free to suggest addition/amendment to the agenda. > > I. Introduction > II. GNSO Council Call Preparation > > * Council agenda: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/agenda/draft-agenda-gnso-council-18jul2019-en.pdf [1] > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc Links: ------ [1] https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/agenda/draft-agenda-gnso-council-18jul2019-en.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Sep 24 02:16:17 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 23:16:17 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: FW: [ICANN Community Leaders] ICANN66 - Constituency Sessions - Topic from the Board In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As you can see, the format for discussions with the Board has changed slightly. We have a bit of time to discuss this, but I would like to send it out to the NCSG-discuss list by the end of this week. What do you guys think? cheers Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: FW: [ICANN Community Leaders] ICANN66 - Constituency Sessions - Topic from the Board Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:53:12 +0000 From: Maryam Bakoshi To: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca , Bruna Martins dos Santos , Joan Kerr , Rafik Dammak Please find below. Many thanks, -- Maryam Bakoshi | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | T: +44 7846 471777 From: SO-AC-SG-CLeaders on behalf of Vinciane Koenigsfeld Date: Monday, 23 September 2019 at 08:29 To: "so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org" Cc: Board-Ops-Team Subject: [ICANN Community Leaders] ICANN66 - Constituency Sessions - Topic from the Board Dear Constituency and Stakeholder Groups Chairs, Please reply no later than Monday 14 October 2019 The Board and I are very much looking forward to engaging with you during our 21st AGM that will take place in Montreal between 2-7 November 2019. We wish to keep working on improving our interaction with you and, in particular, we want to address some of the requests and feedback we have received and introduce some more flexibility in the format of our valuable face-to-face meetings. Starting in Montreal, instead of sending up to three questions to the Board, we would like to offer you the alternative option of choosing a single topic and having an open discussion with the Board on that topic. We are also suggesting that the list of questions or topics received be shared with the entire Community using the Policy digest, in order to increase transparency and allow the groups to improve their own understanding of their peers? point of views on different issues. As for time allocation, we propose to allocate half of our time together to answer your questions or discuss your single topic and the other half to address the Board?s topic. In preparation for our meetings, the Board chose the following topic to have an open discussion with you: ?Community, Board and ICANN org readiness to implement the following three critical plans that will shape ICANN?s future. : (1) Strategic Plan FY 21-25, (2) Operating & Financial Plan FY 21-25, and (3) Work Plan to improve the effectiveness of ICANN?s multistakeholder model.? The Strategic Plan [icann.org] has been adopted by the Board last June at ICANN 65 in Marrakech. The two other plans will be completed and posted for public comment in December 2019. At ICANN 64 in Kobe, the Board asked each constituency to provide three suggestions, one for the Board, one for ICANN org and one for the Community of things/aspects that should be done/improved in order to implement these plans successfully, starting 1 July 2020, as mandated by our Bylaws. In addition, the Board asked for one suggestion of something that could be done externally to improve trust and with our partners and alliances (eg. IETF) so that they collaborate effectively with ICANN on some of our strategic objectives (eg. DNS security). Based on the input received in Kobe, we are compiling a list of suggested actions for the community, Board and ICANN org which we would like to share and discuss with you in Montreal. We will send you that list in advance of our meeting in Montreal on or before 11 October 2019. We would be very grateful if you could send to Board Operations (board-ops-team at icann.org) your single topic or the list of questions (max. 3), in order of priority, no later than Monday 14 October 2019 or sooner. For information, we are not changing the current total time allotted per group nor the room set-up. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on our suggestions and on how to improve our interaction further. We thank you in advance for your time on this matter and we look forward to welcoming you in Canada! Best regards, Cherine Chalaby Chair, ICANN Board of Directors -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From elsa.saade at gmail.com Tue Sep 24 02:54:16 2019 From: elsa.saade at gmail.com (Elsa S) Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:54:16 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: FW: [ICANN Community Leaders] ICANN66 - Constituency Sessions - Topic from the Board In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What is one issue that could tap into several? :) E. ? On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 7:16 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > As you can see, the format for discussions with the Board has changed > slightly. We have a bit of time to discuss this, but I would like to send > it out to the NCSG-discuss list by the end of this week. What do you guys > think? > > cheers Stephanie > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: FW: [ICANN Community Leaders] ICANN66 - Constituency Sessions - > Topic from the Board > Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:53:12 +0000 > From: Maryam Bakoshi > To: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > , Bruna Martins dos Santos > , Joan Kerr > , Rafik Dammak > > > Please find below. > > > > Many thanks, > > -- > > > > *Maryam Bakoshi* | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator > > *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > *S*: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | *T*: +44 7846 471777 > > > > > > *From: *SO-AC-SG-CLeaders > on behalf of Vinciane Koenigsfeld > > *Date: *Monday, 23 September 2019 at 08:29 > *To: *"so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org" > > *Cc: *Board-Ops-Team > > *Subject: *[ICANN Community Leaders] ICANN66 - Constituency Sessions - > Topic from the Board > > > > > > Dear Constituency and Stakeholder Groups Chairs, > > > > *Please reply no later than Monday 14 October 2019* > > > > The Board and I are very much looking forward to engaging with you during > our 21st AGM that will take place in Montreal between 2-7 November 2019. > > > > We wish to keep working on improving our interaction with you and, in > particular, we want to address some of the requests and feedback we have > received and introduce some more flexibility in the format of our valuable > face-to-face meetings. > > > > Starting in Montreal, instead of sending up to three questions to the > Board, we would like to offer you the *alternative* option of choosing a > single topic and having an open discussion with the Board on that topic. > > > > We are also suggesting that the list of questions or topics received be > shared with the entire Community using the Policy digest, in order to > increase transparency and allow the groups to improve their own > understanding of their peers? point of views on different issues. > > > > As for time allocation, we propose to allocate half of our time together > to answer your questions or discuss your single topic and the other half to > address the Board?s topic. > > > > In preparation for our meetings, the Board chose the following topic to > have an open discussion with you: > > > > *?Community, Board and ICANN org readiness to implement the following > three critical plans that will shape ICANN?s future. : (1) Strategic Plan > FY 21-25, (2) Operating & Financial Plan FY 21-25, and (3) Work Plan to > improve the effectiveness of ICANN?s multistakeholder model.?* > > > > The Strategic Plan [icann.org] > has > been adopted by the Board last June at ICANN 65 in Marrakech. The two > other plans will be completed and posted for public comment in December > 2019. > > > > At ICANN 64 in Kobe, the Board asked each constituency to p*rovide three > suggestions, one for the Board, one for ICANN org and one for the > Community *of things/aspects that should be done/improved in order to > implement these plans successfully, starting 1 July 2020, as mandated by > our Bylaws. In addition, the Board asked for *one suggestion* of > something that could be done *externally* to improve trust and with our > partners and alliances (eg. IETF) so that they collaborate effectively with > ICANN on some of our strategic objectives (eg. DNS security). > > > > Based on the input received in Kobe, we are compiling a list of suggested > actions for the community, Board and ICANN org which we would like to share > and discuss with you in Montreal. We will send you that list in advance of > our meeting in Montreal on or before 11 October 2019. > > > > We would be very grateful if you could send to Board Operations ( > board-ops-team at icann.org) your single topic or the list of questions > (max. 3), in order of priority, no later than *Monday 14 October 2019 or > sooner. * > > > > For information, we are not changing the current total time allotted per > group nor the room set-up. > > > > We look forward to hearing your thoughts on our suggestions and on how to > improve our interaction further. > > > > We thank you in advance for your time on this matter and we look forward > to welcoming you in Canada! > > > > Best regards, > > Cherine Chalaby > > Chair, ICANN Board of Directors > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- -- Elsa Saade Consultant Gulf Centre for Human Rights Twitter: @Elsa_Saade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Sep 24 09:17:06 2019 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 15:17:06 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: FW: [ICANN Community Leaders] ICANN66 - Constituency Sessions - Topic from the Board In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Thanks Stephanie, I welcome the change in format. I believe we and board tried to cram so many topics and questions in one hour in a way that didn't engage or create a real dialogue. at least we can try and see how it will work. I would prefer suggesting topic instead of questions where we can introduce and develop better what we would like to discuss. Best, Rafik le mar. 24 sept. 2019 ? 08:16, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a ?crit : > As you can see, the format for discussions with the Board has changed > slightly. We have a bit of time to discuss this, but I would like to send > it out to the NCSG-discuss list by the end of this week. What do you guys > think? > > cheers Stephanie > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: FW: [ICANN Community Leaders] ICANN66 - Constituency Sessions - > Topic from the Board > Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:53:12 +0000 > From: Maryam Bakoshi > To: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > , Bruna Martins dos Santos > , Joan Kerr > , Rafik Dammak > > > Please find below. > > > > Many thanks, > > -- > > > > *Maryam Bakoshi* | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator > > *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > *S*: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | *T*: +44 7846 471777 > > > > > > *From: *SO-AC-SG-CLeaders > on behalf of Vinciane Koenigsfeld > > *Date: *Monday, 23 September 2019 at 08:29 > *To: *"so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org" > > *Cc: *Board-Ops-Team > > *Subject: *[ICANN Community Leaders] ICANN66 - Constituency Sessions - > Topic from the Board > > > > > > Dear Constituency and Stakeholder Groups Chairs, > > > > *Please reply no later than Monday 14 October 2019* > > > > The Board and I are very much looking forward to engaging with you during > our 21st AGM that will take place in Montreal between 2-7 November 2019. > > > > We wish to keep working on improving our interaction with you and, in > particular, we want to address some of the requests and feedback we have > received and introduce some more flexibility in the format of our valuable > face-to-face meetings. > > > > Starting in Montreal, instead of sending up to three questions to the > Board, we would like to offer you the *alternative* option of choosing a > single topic and having an open discussion with the Board on that topic. > > > > We are also suggesting that the list of questions or topics received be > shared with the entire Community using the Policy digest, in order to > increase transparency and allow the groups to improve their own > understanding of their peers? point of views on different issues. > > > > As for time allocation, we propose to allocate half of our time together > to answer your questions or discuss your single topic and the other half to > address the Board?s topic. > > > > In preparation for our meetings, the Board chose the following topic to > have an open discussion with you: > > > > *?Community, Board and ICANN org readiness to implement the following > three critical plans that will shape ICANN?s future. : (1) Strategic Plan > FY 21-25, (2) Operating & Financial Plan FY 21-25, and (3) Work Plan to > improve the effectiveness of ICANN?s multistakeholder model.?* > > > > The Strategic Plan [icann.org] > has > been adopted by the Board last June at ICANN 65 in Marrakech. The two > other plans will be completed and posted for public comment in December > 2019. > > > > At ICANN 64 in Kobe, the Board asked each constituency to p*rovide three > suggestions, one for the Board, one for ICANN org and one for the > Community *of things/aspects that should be done/improved in order to > implement these plans successfully, starting 1 July 2020, as mandated by > our Bylaws. In addition, the Board asked for *one suggestion* of > something that could be done *externally* to improve trust and with our > partners and alliances (eg. IETF) so that they collaborate effectively with > ICANN on some of our strategic objectives (eg. DNS security). > > > > Based on the input received in Kobe, we are compiling a list of suggested > actions for the community, Board and ICANN org which we would like to share > and discuss with you in Montreal. We will send you that list in advance of > our meeting in Montreal on or before 11 October 2019. > > > > We would be very grateful if you could send to Board Operations ( > board-ops-team at icann.org) your single topic or the list of questions > (max. 3), in order of priority, no later than *Monday 14 October 2019 or > sooner. * > > > > For information, we are not changing the current total time allotted per > group nor the room set-up. > > > > We look forward to hearing your thoughts on our suggestions and on how to > improve our interaction further. > > > > We thank you in advance for your time on this matter and we look forward > to welcoming you in Canada! > > > > Best regards, > > Cherine Chalaby > > Chair, ICANN Board of Directors > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Sep 24 10:08:50 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 07:08:50 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: FW: [ICANN Community Leaders] ICANN66 - Constituency Sessions - Topic from the Board In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To an extent I agree. I do like there only being a topic, and there being room for a real dialogue. However, I worry we might walk into the room under-prepared. At least when we had to formulate questions, we involved the entire NCSG and generally had a good discussion on our mailing list ahead of time developing our positions. I wonder if it would be a good idea to develop questions still (for our internal use only), and to only give the Board our overarching topic? Ayden ??????? Original Message ??????? On Tuesday, 24 September 2019 08:16, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks Stephanie, > I welcome the change in format. I believe we and board tried to cram so many topics and questions in one hour in a way that didn't engage or create a real dialogue. > at least we can try and see how it will work. > I would prefer suggesting topic instead of questions where we can introduce and develop better what we would like to discuss. > > Best, > > Rafik > > le mar. 24 sept. 2019 ? 08:16, Stephanie Perrin a ?crit : > >> As you can see, the format for discussions with the Board has changed slightly. We have a bit of time to discuss this, but I would like to send it out to the NCSG-discuss list by the end of this week. What do you guys think? >> >> cheers Stephanie >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: FW: [ICANN Community Leaders] ICANN66 - Constituency Sessions - Topic from the Board >> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:53:12 +0000 >> From: Maryam Bakoshi [](mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org) >> >> To: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca [](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca), Bruna Martins dos Santos [](mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com), Joan Kerr [](mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org), Rafik Dammak [](mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com) >> >> Please find below. >> >> Many thanks, >> >> -- >> >> Maryam Bakoshi | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator >> >> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> >> S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | T: +44 7846 471777 >> >> From: SO-AC-SG-CLeaders [](mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders-bounces at icann.org) on behalf of Vinciane Koenigsfeld [](mailto:vinciane.koenigsfeld at icann.org) >> Date: Monday, 23 September 2019 at 08:29 >> To: ["so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org"](mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org) [](mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders at icann.org) >> Cc: Board-Ops-Team [](mailto:board-ops-team-bounces at icann.org) >> Subject: [ICANN Community Leaders] ICANN66 - Constituency Sessions - Topic from the Board >> >> Dear Constituency and Stakeholder Groups Chairs, >> >> Please reply no later than Monday 14 October 2019 >> >> The Board and I are very much looking forward to engaging with you during our 21st AGM that will take place in Montreal between 2-7 November 2019. >> >> We wish to keep working on improving our interaction with you and, in particular, we want to address some of the requests and feedback we have received and introduce some more flexibility in the format of our valuable face-to-face meetings. >> >> Starting in Montreal, instead of sending up to three questions to the Board, we would like to offer you the alternative option of choosing a single topic and having an open discussion with the Board on that topic. >> >> We are also suggesting that the list of questions or topics received be shared with the entire Community using the Policy digest, in order to increase transparency and allow the groups to improve their own understanding of their peers? point of views on different issues. >> >> As for time allocation, we propose to allocate half of our time together to answer your questions or discuss your single topic and the other half to address the Board?s topic. >> >> In preparation for our meetings, the Board chose the following topic to have an open discussion with you: >> >> ?Community, Board and ICANN org readiness to implement the following three critical plans that will shape ICANN?s future. : (1) Strategic Plan FY 21-25, (2) Operating & Financial Plan FY 21-25, and (3) Work Plan to improve the effectiveness of ICANN?s multistakeholder model.? >> >> The [Strategic Plan [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_strategic-2Dplan-2D2021-2D2025-2D24jun19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=1A9IIOkJia11FXDmJ1R4Jn7wGT4ExHiVuBF89mvNt_Q&m=G2nr6qllkejitMocxR4uW29Z_W5sz1jp-EdSnMjtZfo&s=E_lf_KIvrmDMSIoHktHEXMyyERpNA5Ohivkdyiw45nk&e=) has been adopted by the Board last June at ICANN 65 in Marrakech. The two other plans will be completed and posted for public comment in December 2019. >> >> At ICANN 64 in Kobe, the Board asked each constituency to provide three suggestions, one for the Board, one for ICANN org and one for the Community of things/aspects that should be done/improved in order to implement these plans successfully, starting 1 July 2020, as mandated by our Bylaws. In addition, the Board asked for one suggestion of something that could be done externally to improve trust and with our partners and alliances (eg. IETF) so that they collaborate effectively with ICANN on some of our strategic objectives (eg. DNS security). >> >> Based on the input received in Kobe, we are compiling a list of suggested actions for the community, Board and ICANN org which we would like to share and discuss with you in Montreal. We will send you that list in advance of our meeting in Montreal on or before 11 October 2019. >> >> We would be very grateful if you could send to Board Operations (board-ops-team at icann.org) your single topic or the list of questions (max. 3), in order of priority, no later than Monday 14 October 2019 or sooner. >> >> For information, we are not changing the current total time allotted per group nor the room set-up. >> >> We look forward to hearing your thoughts on our suggestions and on how to improve our interaction further. >> >> We thank you in advance for your time on this matter and we look forward to welcoming you in Canada! >> >> Best regards, >> >> Cherine Chalaby >> >> Chair, ICANN Board of Directors >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Fri Sep 27 22:55:23 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 19:55:23 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBQcsOpLUlDQU5O?= In-Reply-To: <3a769acb-b17b-d124-e265-7a070c2c57ef@rendez-vousmontreal66.quebec> References: <3a769acb-b17b-d124-e265-7a070c2c57ef@rendez-vousmontreal66.quebec> Message-ID: <0eec4342-738a-d019-0d00-2c2b8f354c3f@mail.utoronto.ca> Just letting you guys know about the pre ICANN discussion taking place at MCGill. Ideas welcome, and unfortunately since I have been MIA on all the prep calls, I am not quite sure what the game plan is. Given the well attended climate march today in Montreal, including Greta Thunberg, do we have a position on ICANN's carbon reduction blog? Do we want to push for fewer meetings, smaller meetings, regional meetings, etc. Let me know. cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Pr?-ICANN Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 14:59:01 -0400 From: Louis Houle To: St?phanie Perrin Bonjour St?phanie, Je t'envoie une version plus d?taill?e du Pr?-ICANN. On compte sur toi le 7 octobre. Merci beaucoup de ta participation. -- Louis Houle Pr?sident Rendez-vous Montr?al 66 lh at rendez-vousmontreal66.quebec 581 994-9955 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20190927 Oct 7 event announcement.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 15503 bytes Desc: 20190927 Oct 7 event announcement.docx URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Sep 27 23:33:25 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 20:33:25 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBQcsOpLUlDQU5O?= In-Reply-To: <0eec4342-738a-d019-0d00-2c2b8f354c3f@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <3a769acb-b17b-d124-e265-7a070c2c57ef@rendez-vousmontreal66.quebec> <0eec4342-738a-d019-0d00-2c2b8f354c3f@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I would prefer to push for reductions in internal staff travel and less paper and other unnecessary items in the meeting bags (including the bags), then less face-to-face meetings. I would also encourage ICANN to pay Compensaid or another organization to carbon offset our flights by planting trees in Costa Rica. Best wishes, Ayden On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 21:55, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Just letting you guys know about the pre ICANN discussion taking place at MCGill. Ideas welcome, and unfortunately since I have been MIA on all the prep calls, I am not quite sure what the game plan is. > > Given the well attended climate march today in Montreal, including Greta Thunberg, do we have a position on ICANN's carbon reduction blog? Do we want to push for fewer meetings, smaller meetings, regional meetings, etc. Let me know. > > cheers Steph > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Pr?-ICANN > Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 14:59:01 -0400 > From: Louis Houle [](mailto:lh at rendez-vousmontreal66.quebec) > To: St?phanie Perrin [](mailto:Stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) > > Bonjour St?phanie, > > Je t'envoie une version plus d?taill?e du Pr?-ICANN. On compte sur toi le 7 octobre. > > Merci beaucoup de ta participation. > > -- > Louis Houle > Pr?sident > Rendez-vous Montr?al 66 > lh at rendez-vousmontreal66.quebec > 581 994-9955 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Sep 27 23:46:47 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 20:46:47 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBQcsOpLUlDQU5O?= In-Reply-To: References: <3a769acb-b17b-d124-e265-7a070c2c57ef@rendez-vousmontreal66.quebec> <0eec4342-738a-d019-0d00-2c2b8f354c3f@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: That makes sense to me. I think we will be extra busy in Canada planting the 2 billion more that Justin just promised Greta.... (Those flying over Canada on their way to Montreal next month will appreciate that there is a lot of room for trees here. ) SP On 2019-09-27 16:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: I would prefer to push for reductions in internal staff travel and less paper and other unnecessary items in the meeting bags (including the bags), then less face-to-face meetings. I would also encourage ICANN to pay Compensaid or another organization to carbon offset our flights by planting trees in Costa Rica. Best wishes, Ayden On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 21:55, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: Just letting you guys know about the pre ICANN discussion taking place at MCGill. Ideas welcome, and unfortunately since I have been MIA on all the prep calls, I am not quite sure what the game plan is. Given the well attended climate march today in Montreal, including Greta Thunberg, do we have a position on ICANN's carbon reduction blog? Do we want to push for fewer meetings, smaller meetings, regional meetings, etc. Let me know. cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Pr?-ICANN Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 14:59:01 -0400 From: Louis Houle To: St?phanie Perrin Bonjour St?phanie, Je t'envoie une version plus d?taill?e du Pr?-ICANN. On compte sur toi le 7 octobre. Merci beaucoup de ta participation. -- Louis Houle Pr?sident Rendez-vous Montr?al 66 lh at rendez-vousmontreal66.quebec 581 994-9955 _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Sat Sep 28 00:34:16 2019 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 17:34:16 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBQcsOpLUlDQU5O?= In-Reply-To: References: <3a769acb-b17b-d124-e265-7a070c2c57ef@rendez-vousmontreal66.quebec> <0eec4342-738a-d019-0d00-2c2b8f354c3f@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I have to say asking for staff not to travel and not at least discuss eliminating some of the Face to Face meetings for the community is petulant and only reflect personal views. Since climate change was discussed on the general mailing list with enthusiasm I suggest sending this email to the general mailing list to understand what NCSG thinks. Farzaneh On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:46 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > That makes sense to me. I think we will be extra busy in Canada planting > the 2 billion more that Justin just promised Greta.... > > (Those flying over Canada on their way to Montreal next month will > appreciate that there is a lot of room for trees here. ) > > SP > On 2019-09-27 16:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I would prefer to push for reductions in internal staff travel and less > paper and other unnecessary items in the meeting bags (including the bags), > then less face-to-face meetings. I would also encourage ICANN to pay > Compensaid or another organization to carbon offset our flights by planting > trees in Costa Rica. > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 21:55, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > > Just letting you guys know about the pre ICANN discussion taking place at > MCGill. Ideas welcome, and unfortunately since I have been MIA on all the > prep calls, I am not quite sure what the game plan is. > > Given the well attended climate march today in Montreal, including Greta > Thunberg, do we have a position on ICANN's carbon reduction blog? Do we > want to push for fewer meetings, smaller meetings, regional meetings, etc. > Let me know. > > cheers Steph > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Pr?-ICANN > Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 14:59:01 -0400 > From: Louis Houle > > To: St?phanie Perrin > > > Bonjour St?phanie, > > Je t'envoie une version plus d?taill?e du Pr?-ICANN. On compte sur toi le > 7 octobre. > > Merci beaucoup de ta participation. > > -- > Louis Houle > Pr?sident > Rendez-vous Montr?al 66lh at rendez-vousmontreal66.quebec > 581 994-9955 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat Sep 28 00:37:04 2019 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 21:37:04 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBQcsOpLUlDQU5O?= In-Reply-To: References: <3a769acb-b17b-d124-e265-7a070c2c57ef@rendez-vousmontreal66.quebec> <0eec4342-738a-d019-0d00-2c2b8f354c3f@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: And it is obvious you are presenting your personal views here. You are attempting to score cheap political points without considering the implications for our policy activities. Ayden On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 23:34, farzaneh badii wrote: > I have to say asking for staff not to travel and not at least discuss eliminating some of the Face to Face meetings for the community is petulant and only reflect personal views. Since climate change was discussed on the general mailing list with enthusiasm I suggest sending this email to the general mailing list to understand what NCSG thinks. > > Farzaneh > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:46 PM Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> That makes sense to me. I think we will be extra busy in Canada planting the 2 billion more that Justin just promised Greta.... >> >> (Those flying over Canada on their way to Montreal next month will appreciate that there is a lot of room for trees here. ) >> >> SP >> >> On 2019-09-27 16:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> >>> I would prefer to push for reductions in internal staff travel and less paper and other unnecessary items in the meeting bags (including the bags), then less face-to-face meetings. I would also encourage ICANN to pay Compensaid or another organization to carbon offset our flights by planting trees in Costa Rica. >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 21:55, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >>>> Just letting you guys know about the pre ICANN discussion taking place at MCGill. Ideas welcome, and unfortunately since I have been MIA on all the prep calls, I am not quite sure what the game plan is. >>>> >>>> Given the well attended climate march today in Montreal, including Greta Thunberg, do we have a position on ICANN's carbon reduction blog? Do we want to push for fewer meetings, smaller meetings, regional meetings, etc. Let me know. >>>> >>>> cheers Steph >>>> >>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>> Subject: Pr?-ICANN >>>> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 14:59:01 -0400 >>>> From: Louis Houle [](mailto:lh at rendez-vousmontreal66.quebec) >>>> To: St?phanie Perrin [](mailto:Stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) >>>> >>>> Bonjour St?phanie, >>>> >>>> Je t'envoie une version plus d?taill?e du Pr?-ICANN. On compte sur toi le 7 octobre. >>>> >>>> Merci beaucoup de ta participation. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Louis Houle >>>> Pr?sident >>>> Rendez-vous Montr?al 66 >>>> lh at rendez-vousmontreal66.quebec >>>> 581 994-9955 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Sep 30 19:11:47 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:11:47 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Call for volunteers - Global Public Interest Framework consultation In-Reply-To: <7DF3040A-6F68-452D-A640-D5A4B7787458@icann.org> References: <7DF3040A-6F68-452D-A640-D5A4B7787458@icann.org> Message-ID: Did any of our folks volunteer for this? Seems important to me. Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] Call for volunteers - Global Public Interest Framework consultation Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 22:22:19 +0000 From: Marika Konings To: council at gnso.icann.org Dear Council members, In follow up to last week?s Council meeting, please let us know if there are any additional volunteers, in addition to Pam and Elsa, to work on a proposed Council response to the community consultation on the Global Public Interest Framework. The consultation requests further input on the following questions: * What are your thoughts on the proposed framework approach? Do you have any suggestions for how it could be improved? * What are your thoughts on the proposed approach for decisions in the ICANN ecosystem to be accompanied by a consideration of their impact on the global public interest (as well as an explanation regarding what is meant by the GPI in the specific case)? * How do you see this working for the Supporting Organization (SO), Advisory Committee (AC), constituency, group, review team, or cross-community working group (CCWG) to which you are contributing? The deadline for feedback is 18 October 2019. For further details, please see https://community.icann.org/x/wxCAAw. Please indicate by Friday 27 September at the latest whether you are interested to assist. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings at icann.org Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part URL: From elsa.saade at gmail.com Mon Sep 30 19:13:29 2019 From: elsa.saade at gmail.com (Elsa S) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:13:29 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Call for volunteers - Global Public Interest Framework consultation In-Reply-To: References: <7DF3040A-6F68-452D-A640-D5A4B7787458@icann.org> Message-ID: Just me from NCSG! E. -- On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Did any of our folks volunteer for this? Seems important to me. > > Steph > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [council] Call for volunteers - Global Public Interest Framework > consultation > Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 22:22:19 +0000 > From: Marika Konings > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > > Dear Council members, > > > > In follow up to last week?s Council meeting, please let us know if there > are any additional volunteers, in addition to Pam and Elsa, to work on a > proposed Council response to the community consultation on the Global > Public Interest Framework. The consultation requests further input on the > following questions: > > - What are your thoughts on the proposed framework approach? Do you > have any suggestions for how it could be improved? > - What are your thoughts on the proposed approach for decisions in the > ICANN ecosystem to be accompanied by a consideration of their impact on the > global public interest (as well as an explanation regarding what is meant > by the GPI in the specific case)? > - How do you see this working for the Supporting Organization (SO), > Advisory Committee (AC), constituency, group, review team, or > cross-community working group (CCWG) to which you are contributing? > > The deadline for feedback is 18 October 2019. For further details, please > see https://community.icann.org/x/wxCAAw. > > Please indicate by Friday 27 September at the latest whether you are > interested to assist. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Marika > > > > *Marika Konings* > > *Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation > for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * > > *Email: marika.konings at icann.org * > > > > *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO* > > *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses > and > visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages > . * > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: