From PolicyCalendar at icann.org Tue Apr 6 16:28:58 2021 From: PolicyCalendar at icann.org (ICANN Policy Calendar) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 13:28:58 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Monthly Policy call | 19 April | 11:30 UTC Message-ID: <40f3c549f59a43589c9061696bca13b8@icann.org> Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 19 April 2021 at 11:30 UTC.  Additional time zone support here. Join Zoom Meeting:  https://icann.zoom.us/j/98878189584?pwd=ZVpkSVVuaXVqeGRMelNEWW1LMkxQUT09 Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584 Passcode: i!y7.qx+11 One tap mobile +16699006833,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (San Jose) +12532158782,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (Tacoma) PHONE ONLY DETAILS: Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/ayKmeftWg Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584 Phone only Passcode: 7740925615 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 2472 bytes Desc: not available URL: From PolicyCalendar at icann.org Tue Apr 6 16:29:48 2021 From: PolicyCalendar at icann.org (ICANN Policy Calendar) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 13:29:48 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Monthly Policy call | 17 May| 11:30 UTC Message-ID: <8b33a8287506480e9ef5d7e591ae5618@icann.org> Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 17 May 2021 at 11:30 UTC.  Additional time zone support here. Join Zoom Meeting:  https://icann.zoom.us/j/98878189584?pwd=ZVpkSVVuaXVqeGRMelNEWW1LMkxQUT09 Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584 Passcode: i!y7.qx+11 One tap mobile +16699006833,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (San Jose) +12532158782,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (Tacoma) PHONE ONLY DETAILS: Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/ayKmeftWg Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584 Phone only Passcode: 7740925615 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 2463 bytes Desc: not available URL: From PolicyCalendar at icann.org Tue Apr 6 16:30:17 2021 From: PolicyCalendar at icann.org (ICANN Policy Calendar) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 13:30:17 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Monthly Policy call | 14 June | 11:30 UTC Message-ID: <10949acad9d14404853dfb1afdf822cf@icann.org> Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 14 June 2021 at 11:30 UTC.  Additional time zone support here. Join Zoom Meeting:  https://icann.zoom.us/j/98878189584?pwd=ZVpkSVVuaXVqeGRMelNEWW1LMkxQUT09 Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584 Passcode: i!y7.qx+11 One tap mobile +16699006833,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (San Jose) +12532158782,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (Tacoma) PHONE ONLY DETAILS: Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/ayKmeftWg Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584 Phone only Passcode: 7740925615 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 2466 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Thu Apr 8 04:15:38 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:15:38 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [FOR REVIEW] SSR2 public comment draft Message-ID: Hi folks, Please review the comment to the SSR2 public comment proceeding drafted by Farzaneh, found on the link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hn_yguSzCZK9cnsS_J5XF3Atg6XpiYmZlYy_Nbc7K_I/edit?usp=sharing We have to submit it today/tomorrow Thursday 08/04, depending on your world location, so your urgent action would be greatly appreciated. cheers, Tomslin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wisdom.dk at gmail.com Thu Apr 8 13:24:01 2021 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:24:01 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [FOR REVIEW] SSR2 public comment draft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have gone through the comments and ok by me. Cheers, On Thu, Apr 8, 2021, 1:15 AM Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > Hi folks, > > Please review the comment > > to the SSR2 public comment proceeding drafted by Farzaneh, found on the > link > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hn_yguSzCZK9cnsS_J5XF3Atg6XpiYmZlYy_Nbc7K_I/edit?usp=sharing > > We have to submit it today/tomorrow Thursday 08/04, depending on your > world location, so your urgent action would be greatly appreciated. > > cheers, > Tomslin > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Fri Apr 9 11:07:46 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 18:07:46 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?q?=28no_subject=29?= Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20210321_120903.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 114515 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Fri Apr 9 12:46:09 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 19:46:09 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] =?utf-8?q?=28no_subject=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My apologies everyone. Please ignore the message. Tomslin On Fri., 9 Apr. 2021, 18:07 Tomslin Samme-Nlar, wrote: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Tue Apr 13 00:51:40 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 07:51:40 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for Applications: GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) to Review the Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear members, Some of you might be aware of the recently launched Transfer Policy PDP, intended to review key aspects relating to inter-registrar and inter-registrant domain name transfers like the auth code, sometimes referred to as the ?keys? to a domain name, change of registrant requirements and Form of Authorization requirements, including compliance to data privacy laws. The GNSO Council has asked that we identify up to 2 members and 2 alternates to participate in this Working Group. Members interested in volunteering for this PDP should please send their application to the Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee (mesumbeslin at gmail.com), copy (bruna.mrtns at gmail.com) and (maryam.bakoshi at icann.org) by 20th April 2021. Your application should include all relevant details to demonstrate your experience with regards to applicant selection and evaluation processes, an updated statement of interest (SOI), and any other relevant information for the NCSG Policy Committee?s consideration. Also consider the below criteria that the GNSO Council considers to be important for this PDP: ? Knowledge of Transfer Policy issues, background and current work status; ? Commitment to participating in Working Group meetings on a regular and ongoing basis; ? Ability to create factual, relevant and easily understandable messages, and able to succinctly deliver them to the Working Group; ? Ability to deliver a point constructively and concisely; ? Familiarity with the following sections of the Working Group Guidelines: ? Section 4.1 Session Planning ? General Meeting Logistics ? Section 4.2 Communication/Collaboration Tools ? Effective oral, written, and interpersonal communication skills (in simple, comprehensible English); ? Research skills with the ability to discern factual, factually relevant, and persuasive details and sources; ? Commitment to manage a diverse workload, while collaborating with a Working Group of individuals with different backgrounds and interests in driving objectives; ? In depth knowledge of Working Group discussions, actions taken at meetings, and deliverables; ? Understanding of the perspectives and interests of the members? own stakeholder group or constituency; ? Project management skills in driving the completion of SG/C statements in a timely manner. All members are required to commit from the outset of the work effort to a Statement of Participation. For further information, please consult the attached letter. Best regards, Tomslin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG - Call for Volunteers - GNSO Transfer Policy PDP WG.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 2403823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Tue Apr 13 14:36:27 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 21:36:27 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for Volunteers - GNSO Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process Phase 1 Final Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration Message-ID: Dear members, There is a running public proceeding seeking to obtain community input prior to the Board action on the Phase 1 final recommendations of the GNSO Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs Policy Development Process (PDP) Please let me know off-list if you'd like to volunteer for the comment drafting. It'll be nice to have more than one volunteer. The comment period closes on 30 April 2021. More information on the public comment can be found here : https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-rpm-pdp-phase-1-final-recommendations-2021-04-07-en A draft Google doc for the comment can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sfowGrsBgwwCieCaKpSFnpPRiFelOAxyAK0THFbj6io/edit?usp=sharing You can find previous NCSG comments here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2021 Regards, Tomslin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Thu Apr 15 23:15:38 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 06:15:38 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed Policy Call agenda Message-ID: Dear PC, Please find below the proposed agenda for next week's policy call. Let me know if you'd like anything added to it please. 1. Introduction 2. Updates from the GNSO Council Action Decision Radar (ADR) 3. GNSO Council Call Preparation - Council agenda can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+GNSO+Council+Agenda+22+April+2021 4. Policy Updates - Current calls for volunteers 1. Transfer Policy PDP 2. Public comments 5. Any other business & Admin matters Tomslin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Thu Apr 15 23:32:30 2021 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 22:32:30 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed Policy Call agenda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Tomslin and all, I will be late for the call, due to work obligations I will be able to join 15-20 min after its start. Sorry, that was a scheduling conflict I wasn't able to solve. Can we perhaps put public comments and some other updates before the GNSO call preparation to be on the safe side? Thanks! Cheers, Tanya On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 22:15, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > Dear PC, > > Please find below the proposed agenda for next week's policy call. Let me > know if you'd like anything added to it please. > > > 1. Introduction > 2. Updates from the GNSO Council Action Decision Radar (ADR) > 3. GNSO Council Call Preparation > - Council agenda can be found here: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+GNSO+Council+Agenda+22+April+2021 > 4. Policy Updates > - Current calls for volunteers > 1. Transfer Policy PDP > 2. Public comments > 5. Any other business & Admin matters > > > Tomslin > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Fri Apr 16 00:08:15 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 07:08:15 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed Policy Call agenda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Tanya. I can definitely do that. Cheers, Tomslin On Fri., 16 Apr. 2021, 06:32 Tatiana Tropina, wrote: > Hi Tomslin and all, > I will be late for the call, due to work obligations I will be able to > join 15-20 min after its start. Sorry, that was a scheduling conflict I > wasn't able to solve. Can we perhaps put public comments and some other > updates before the GNSO call preparation to be on the safe side? > Thanks! > Cheers, > Tanya > > On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 22:15, Tomslin Samme-Nlar > wrote: > >> Dear PC, >> >> Please find below the proposed agenda for next week's policy call. Let me >> know if you'd like anything added to it please. >> >> >> 1. Introduction >> 2. Updates from the GNSO Council Action Decision Radar (ADR) >> 3. GNSO Council Call Preparation >> - Council agenda can be found here: >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+GNSO+Council+Agenda+22+April+2021 >> 4. Policy Updates >> - Current calls for volunteers >> 1. Transfer Policy PDP >> 2. Public comments >> 5. Any other business & Admin matters >> >> >> Tomslin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Fri Apr 16 00:13:53 2021 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 23:13:53 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Proposed Policy Call agenda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Tomslin! On Thu 15. Apr 2021 at 23:08, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > Thanks Tanya. I can definitely do that. > > Cheers, > Tomslin > > > On Fri., 16 Apr. 2021, 06:32 Tatiana Tropina, > wrote: > >> Hi Tomslin and all, >> I will be late for the call, due to work obligations I will be able to >> join 15-20 min after its start. Sorry, that was a scheduling conflict I >> wasn't able to solve. Can we perhaps put public comments and some other >> updates before the GNSO call preparation to be on the safe side? >> Thanks! >> Cheers, >> Tanya >> >> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 22:15, Tomslin Samme-Nlar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear PC, >>> >>> Please find below the proposed agenda for next week's policy call. Let >>> me know if you'd like anything added to it please. >>> >>> >>> 1. Introduction >>> 2. Updates from the GNSO Council Action Decision Radar (ADR) >>> 3. GNSO Council Call Preparation >>> - Council agenda can be found here: >>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+GNSO+Council+Agenda+22+April+2021 >>> 4. Policy Updates >>> - Current calls for volunteers >>> 1. Transfer Policy PDP >>> 2. Public comments >>> 5. Any other business & Admin matters >>> >>> >>> Tomslin >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PolicyCalendar at icann.org Fri Apr 16 16:06:22 2021 From: PolicyCalendar at icann.org (ICANN Policy Calendar) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:06:22 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] REMINDER: NCSG Monthly Policy call | 19 April | 11:30 UTC Message-ID: <9209a7ef65584f3f85ba680b0aa894c9@icann.org> Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 19 April 2021 at 11:30 UTC. Additional time zone support here. Join Zoom Meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/j/98878189584?pwd=ZVpkSVVuaXVqeGRMelNEWW1LMkxQUT09 Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584 Passcode: i!y7.qx+11 One tap mobile +16699006833,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (San Jose) +12532158782,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (Tacoma) PHONE ONLY DETAILS: Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/ayKmeftWg Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584 Phone only Passcode: 7740925615 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 2488 bytes Desc: not available URL: From brenda.brewer at icann.org Fri Apr 16 16:09:34 2021 From: brenda.brewer at icann.org (Brenda Brewer) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:09:34 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] REMINDER: NCSG Monthly Policy call | 19 April | 11:30 UTC Message-ID: <023C0151-9ECC-4634-B2BB-78E8B8BD1898@icann.org> Good day all! Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 19 April 2021 at 11:30 UTC. Additional time zone support here. Also note, calendar invites have been sent and .ics is attached. Kind regards, Brenda & Maryam _____________________________________________ Join Zoom Meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/j/98878189584?pwd=ZVpkSVVuaXVqeGRMelNEWW1LMkxQUT09 Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584 Passcode: i!y7.qx+11 One tap mobile +16699006833,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (San Jose) +12532158782,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (Tacoma) PHONE ONLY DETAILS: Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/ayKmeftWg Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584 Phone only Passcode: 7740925615 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: REMINDER- NCSG Monthly Policy call 19 April 11-30 UTC.ics Type: text/calendar Size: 2488 bytes Desc: REMINDER- NCSG Monthly Policy call 19 April 11-30 UTC.ics URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Sat Apr 17 09:52:06 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 16:52:06 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Monthly Policy call Agenda In-Reply-To: <023C0151-9ECC-4634-B2BB-78E8B8BD1898@icann.org> References: <023C0151-9ECC-4634-B2BB-78E8B8BD1898@icann.org> Message-ID: Dear all, Please see the agenda for our policy call on *Monday, 19 April 2021 at 11:30 UTC. *Additional time zone support here . 1. Introduction 2. Updates from the GNSO Council Action Decision Radar (ADR) 3. Policy Updates - Current calls for volunteers 1. Transfer Policy PDP 2. Public comments 4. GNSO Council Call Preparation - Council agenda can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+GNSO+Council+Agenda+22+April+2021 5. Any other business & Admin matters Cheers, Tomslin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bruna.mrtns at gmail.com Mon Apr 19 14:42:56 2021 From: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com (Bruna Martins dos Santos) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:42:56 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Monthly Policy call | 19 April | 11:30 UTC In-Reply-To: <40f3c549f59a43589c9061696bca13b8@icann.org> References: <40f3c549f59a43589c9061696bca13b8@icann.org> Message-ID: Hello all, In case you are available right now, we have a policy call going on. The details can be found below.. *Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 19 April 2021 at 11:30 UTC.* Additional time zone support here . Join Zoom Meeting: *https://icann.zoom.us/j/98878189584?pwd=ZVpkSVVuaXVqeGRMelNEWW1LMkxQUT09 * Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584 Passcode: i!y7.qx+11 One tap mobile +16699006833,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (San Jose) +12532158782,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (Tacoma) On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 10:29 AM ICANN Policy Calendar < PolicyCalendar at icann.org> wrote: > *Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 19 April 2021 at > 11:30 UTC.* Additional time zone support here > > . > > > Join Zoom Meeting: > *https://icann.zoom.us/j/98878189584?pwd=ZVpkSVVuaXVqeGRMelNEWW1LMkxQUT09 > * > > > Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584 > > Passcode: i!y7.qx+11 > > > One tap mobile > > +16699006833,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (San Jose) > > +12532158782,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (Tacoma) > > > > PHONE ONLY DETAILS: > > Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/ayKmeftWg > > Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584 > > Phone only Passcode: 7740925615 > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- *Bruna Martins dos Santos * Advocacy Coordinator | Data Privacy Brazil Research Member | Coaliz?o Direitos na Rede Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus Twitter: @boomartins // Skype: bruna.martinsantos bruna at dataprivacybr.org and bruna.mrtns at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wisdom.dk at gmail.com Mon Apr 19 16:12:20 2021 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:12:20 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Monthly Policy call | 19 April | 11:30 UTC In-Reply-To: References: <40f3c549f59a43589c9061696bca13b8@icann.org> Message-ID: Dear Bruna, Kindly accept my apology for not able to make it for this very important call. I was in a meeting, I was on an assignment outside of my office Kind regards, On Mon, Apr 19, 2021, 11:43 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos < bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > In case you are available right now, we have a policy call going on. The > details can be found below.. > > *Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 19 April 2021 at > 11:30 UTC.* Additional time zone support here > > . > > > Join Zoom Meeting: > *https://icann.zoom.us/j/98878189584?pwd=ZVpkSVVuaXVqeGRMelNEWW1LMkxQUT09 > * > > > Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584 > > Passcode: i!y7.qx+11 > > > One tap mobile > > +16699006833,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (San Jose) > > +12532158782,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (Tacoma) > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 10:29 AM ICANN Policy Calendar < > PolicyCalendar at icann.org> wrote: > >> *Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 19 April 2021 at >> 11:30 UTC.* Additional time zone support here >> >> . >> >> >> Join Zoom Meeting: >> *https://icann.zoom.us/j/98878189584?pwd=ZVpkSVVuaXVqeGRMelNEWW1LMkxQUT09 >> * >> >> >> Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584 >> >> Passcode: i!y7.qx+11 >> >> >> One tap mobile >> >> +16699006833,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (San Jose) >> >> +12532158782,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (Tacoma) >> >> >> >> PHONE ONLY DETAILS: >> >> Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/ayKmeftWg >> >> Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584 >> >> Phone only Passcode: 7740925615 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > > -- > > *Bruna Martins dos Santos * > > Advocacy Coordinator | Data Privacy Brazil Research > > > Member | Coaliz?o Direitos na Rede > Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN > > Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus > > Twitter: @boomartins // Skype: > bruna.martinsantos > bruna at dataprivacybr.org and bruna.mrtns at gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Sun Apr 25 00:44:42 2021 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 21:44:42 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP policy issues Message-ID: Dear Noncommercials, I am one of your representatives of the EPDP, and ICANN working group that is trying to bring ICANN's Whois policy into compliance with privacy principles. Just yesterday we received this statement from the current chair of the group, Keith Drazek: The EPDP Team is a representative group - you have all been appointed by your respective groups to represent them in this effort. As a result, any proposals and interventions you make are expected to be on behalf of your group. We understand that this requires significant coordination which is not always possible in real-time but it is important that we do not find ourselves in a situation where a specific proposal or suggestion is debated to then find that other members of the same group do not stand behind the proposal or suggestion. I suspect Keith found it necessary to say this because lately another NCSG representative on the EPDP, Stephanie, and I have been openly disagreeing. Let me explain what the disagreement is about. We will have to appeal to the Policy Committee, and the membership, to help resolve it. Privacy protections under the GDPR only apply to natural persons, that is to say living breathing humans, not to legal persons, i.e. corporations or companies. And in most cases, we do not mind if company data is published in their domain record. In many cases it can even help with economic and legal accountability. However, we both recognize that there is a large gray area of small companies or home offices where the line between personal and legal is thin, blurry or nonexistent. A registrant that is formally a legal person may want the privacy protection of a natural person. One of the issues we are dealing with in Phase 2 is whether and how registrars should differentiate between those two types of registrants. Under the current Phase 1 agreement, contracted parties are not required to differentiate between registrants who are legal or natural persons, but they can do so if they wish to. I believe both Stephanie and I (and the contracted parties) agree on NOT requiring them to differentiate. But if registrars DO choose to differentiate, we have to worry about HOW they do it. Currently, the EPDP is working on a guidance document that will set out ways to do it. I want to make sure that the guidance protects the rights of registrants. My position is that registrants should be given a clear choice to self-designate as a legal person or not. When given that choice, they must be clearly told that their data will be published, and if they don't want the data published, they should not self-designate as a legal person. Under my view, the registrant, and the registrant alone, should decide for themselves whether to declare as legal person or not. Stephanie's position is that registrants are not smart enough to make this choice for themselves. Worse, her belief that registrants cannot look out for their own interests makes her in favor of the idea that REGISTRARS should be able to make the choice for them. In other words, a commercial registrar, based on their own information about you, could decide that you are registering a domain name on behalf of a company and classify you as a legal person without your participation or consent. In my view, this is a very bad idea, even a dangerous one. It makes the registrar responsible for verifying certain aspects of your identity. We already know that those who want more surveillance and control of registrants want registrars to be more restrictive and take on a bigger role vetting who is registering domains. This idea is also very bad for the registrars, because if a registrar is making the decision about whether you are a legal or natural person, then the registrar will be legally liable for the decision. Further down the road, those who want a more restrictive internet will love the precedent set, they will ask the registrars to do more and more to vet and regulate their customers. I believe that Stephanie has good motives for her position; as I understand it she thinks that if registrars have this ability to decide for the registrant, they will err on the side of non-disclosure. But this is very na?ve. Yes, some of the registrars we are dealing with in EPDP are sincere supporters of their customers privacy. But others are not. Further, Stephanie is forgetting about the fact that many registrars are operating in authoritarian countries where individual rights are not respected. I am also deeply troubled by a position that registrants are children who cannot take care of themselves. I think Stephanie's position is also motivated by the view that we are better off if there is no differentiation at all. This may be true, but it is unrealistic. The default policy, ALREADY, is that registrars will be able to differentiate if they want to. I am trying to plan for the possibility that many of them will want to. If they do, we want registrants to be in control of their status, not registrars or any other third party allegedly acting on their behalf. My hope is that the membership and the PC will resolve this issue in favor of the "registrant in control" position. Sorry for the long message Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy [IGP_logo_gold block] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 16925 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca Sun Apr 25 20:41:28 2021 From: stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca (Stephanie E Perrin) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 13:41:28 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP policy issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <300a4106-92f7-304c-749c-43049d75bd05@digitaldiscretion.ca> Dear Noncommercials, I am one of your 6 representatives on the EPDP.? I have also been on the RDS working group, am currently serving on the GNSO Council, the EPDP IRT and the PPSAI IRT.? I served on the PPSAI (Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues, https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/ppsai ) pdp back in 2013-2016 , where this issue on whether or not registrants should have to identify themselves as individuals or businesses (we were not actually using the term "legal persons" at the time, because ICANN was ignoring the GDPR and this is a term that is more commonly used in Europe than elsewhere).? I came to ICANN in 2013 to serve on the Experts Working Group (EWG) that was examining the RDS registry with a view to expanding it.? (final report https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-directory-services-2013-02-14-en) I also have been working not exclusively but predominantly, on privacy and access to information issues since 1984.? I am not a lawyer, just a policy wonk and researcher.? As someone who has been fighting vociferously within government and outside government in the private sector about surveillance and human rights, I bristle somewhat at my worthy colleague describing me as naive, however that is neither here nor there.? Lets focus on the issues at stake.? First let me correct Milton's description of my position. At no time have I ever suggested that it would be acceptable for registrars to overrule my designation of myself as a natural person, or in the case of a legal person, a statement that the contact data of employees needs to be protected because it contains personal data. Never.? However, as we all know or should know, busy entrepreneurs will take short cuts and avoid spending money.....there is strong pressure to push organizations to self identify as legal persons, and publish their data.? It is my position that this is a residue of the old WHOIS thinking that is a policy position which has no merit as a policy, in that we have seen no evidence that the stability of the DNS has been hampered by somewhat blanket protection of the registrant data.? In fact, the contracted parties have stated that abuse has gone down, possibly because there is less personal data being published.? So to push all data of legal persons into a published registry is neither necessary or sound policy. Now lets talk about how difficult it is to differentiate between legal persons and individuals.Milton makes it sound easy, but as Farzi pointed out in her helpful intervention, not all jurisdictions use or recognize the term. Not all registrants are legally trained, familiar with data protection risks, are comfortable operating in the english language, or understand the DNS and its registration processes.? This does not mean they are not "smart" [or that I am labelling them as such] it simply recognizes that to most people, a domain is not a familiar term, they want a website and they will talk to their local services provider or web builder or any of a hundred other entrepreneurs to get their website up and with it the domain name they need or want.? For the organizations that we in NCSG represent, namely the non-commercials, that goes double.? One of the charities that I volunteer as privacy officer for is itself a corporation, and not a small one at that, but the local websites that have been set up to raise funds or promote activities, from finding funding and housing for refugees, to raising money for soup kitchens, homeless shelters, promoting free lunches, reaching out to victims of domestic violence....do I need to go on?? Those are not technically registered by the corporation, they are registered by individuals, and those folks as volunteers in the organization may be long gone....remember that once a registration is on auto-renewal, somebody keeps paying the bill but especially in our sector, it could be quite vague who that is, where they are, and what there status in the organization is.? Remember that domain names are cheap, this kind of payment could be coming out of petty cash or a donor's pocket. So if I, a privacy professional who has 37 years of experience would have to consult the corporate lawyers to figure out the precise status of these registrations, after 8 years at ICANN working on this stuff and writing a doctoral dissertation on it while doing so, how on earth is the poor soul who is getting the cross examination from the registrar/reseller/other contracted party going to get it right?? Sure, Procter and Gamble, Nike, the large corporations and NGOS know who they are and how they registrar.? Those we represent may not. I would also like to say a few words on the sadly under-represented small businesses and sole entrepreneurs of the world.? We live in a gig economy.? Even without COVID and lockdowns, more and more individuals are working for themselves. Many privacy laws protect employees, and recognize their rights, but that usually does not extend to contractors.? Many companies now are forcing their employees into "contractor" status, often to avoid paying benefits, health and safety liability or whatever. Those who are following the court cases surrounding Uber drivers will know that this issue is interpreted differently in different jurisdictions.? The GDPR recognizes the privacy rights of employees.? A good question to ask, is whether employees understand their own privacy rights.? Most don't, in my experience, and I make a living doing privacy training among other things. The policy we are developing must address the privacy rights of employees of legal persons, and other persons employed by those entities in certain cases.? The GDPR applies to personal information.? The rather sparse statement that it does not apply to legal persons is not particularly helpful in actually parsing the data in a DNS registration.? So the guidance we are working on has to guide individuals to the point where they can knowledgeably attest to one of the following statements: 1) that they are an individual, and if they choose to publish their personal information they are doing so in full knowledge of the risks and what will happen to their data 2) that they are responsible for a legal person's registrations, and that they can attest to the fact that no personal information is being disclosed in the registration. Given how frequently employees change roles over time, and the fact that registrations tend to auto-renew, I have grave concerns that this is where personal info is going to seep back into the records without the knowledge or attention of the original registrant who filled out the forms.? Remember the trends to working from home, sometimes on owned equipment or wifi. I believe that if the contracted parties, who are the data controllers in this situation and therefore own the risk and the liability attendant with this decision, have to do this verification or trust the decision of the registrant, we will see either rising costs of domain names (if they do it right) or the same kind of opt-in situation we see throughout the world now, where people opt in to things without understanding their risk. We in the legal subcommittee fired off a couple of questions to Bird and Bird, our outside counsel, on how the contracted parties could reduce their risk in this situation, and indeed they have provided advice on that.? (see the summary text prepared by staff https://docs.google.com/document/d/1whCpXHm3UPmJ-IDSbliveSkwxL679x2U/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs, but I recommend reading the actual advice from Bird and Bird). Milton has taken a strong position that the Registrars or other contracted parties should not be permitted to overrule the designation of a registrant.? He calls it a slippery slope.? I maintain that if the contracted parties feel there might be an error in the designation of "legal person" they should err on the side of caution and protect their customer's data.? I cannot see a slippery slope there.? Nor have I seen evidence brought forward that their will be harm to the security and stability of the DNS, just the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth without stats to back it up.? Let us therefore err on the side of protecting registrants' data. I fully agree that the risk in this situation is trivial when compared to what is happening to our social media habit tracking, our political choices, our health records, biometric recognition systems etc etc.? However, remember that we represent those who want websites for political speech, for the exercise of human rights, for the development of underprivileged persons in an increasingly unbalanced world.....those people deserve our vigilance.? There is no reason to publish that information, if there is a valid reason to ask for it, the request can go through the SSAD system we are supposed to be building, and the third party wanting the info will get it within 3 business days.? If it is life or death, either the domain will cease to work as a result of takedown, or the request will be expedited.? There is no need to compromise, and while I understand Milton's desire to compromise, I see absolutely no need to do so here.? This fight is not going to end, there will be further pressure to harmonize, make decisions automatic, geo-locate, you name it, we have fought about these issues endlessly and I for one do not thing it is going to stop until the full WHOIS is back up the way it was for the first 18 years or so in the life of ICANN. I am happy to answer any questions, or discuss this matter. Thanks to those few of you who read this. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin On 2021-04-24 5:44 p.m., Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Dear Noncommercials, > > I am one of your representatives of the EPDP, and ICANN working group > that is trying to bring ICANN?s Whois policy into compliance with > privacy principles. > > Just yesterday we received this statement from the current chair of > the group, Keith Drazek: > > The EPDP Team is a representative group ? you have all been appointed > by your respective groups to represent them in this effort. As a > result, any proposals and interventions you make are expected to be on > behalf of your group. We understand that this requires significant > coordination which is not always possible in real-time but it is > important that we do not find ourselves in a situation where a > specific proposal or suggestion is debated to then find that other > members of the same group do not stand behind the proposal or suggestion. > > I suspect Keith found it necessary to say this because lately another > NCSG representative on the EPDP, Stephanie, and I have been openly > disagreeing. Let me explain what the disagreement is about. We will > have to appeal to the Policy Committee, and the membership, to help > resolve it. > > Privacy protections under the GDPR only apply to natural persons, that > is to say living breathing humans, not to legal persons, i.e. > corporations or companies. And in most cases, we do not mind if > company data is published in their domain record. In many cases it can > even help with economic and legal accountability. However, we both > recognize that there is a large gray area of small companies or home > offices where the line between personal and legal is thin, blurry or > nonexistent. A registrant that is formally a legal person may want the > privacy protection of a natural person. > > One of the issues we are dealing with in Phase 2 is whether and how > registrars ?should differentiate between those two types of > registrants. Under the current Phase 1 agreement, contracted parties > are not required to differentiate between registrants who are legal or > natural persons, but they can do so if they wish to. I believe both > Stephanie and I (and the contracted parties) agree on NOT requiring > them to differentiate. > > But if registrars DO choose to differentiate, we have to worry about > HOW they do it. Currently, the EPDP is working on a guidance document > that will set out ways to do it. I want to make sure that the guidance > protects the rights of registrants. > > My position is that registrants should be given a clear choice to > self-designate as a legal person or not. When given that choice, they > must be clearly told that their data will be published, and if they > don?t want the data published, they should not self-designate as a > legal person. Under my view, the registrant, and the registrant alone, > should decide for themselves whether to declare as legal person or not. > > Stephanie?s position is that registrants are not smart enough to make > this choice for themselves. Worse, her belief that registrants cannot > look out for their own interests makes her in favor of the idea that > REGISTRARS should be able to make the choice for them. In other words, > a commercial registrar, based on their own information about you, > could decide that you are registering a domain name on behalf of a > company and classify you as a legal person without your participation > or consent. > > In my view, this is a very bad idea, even a dangerous one. It makes > the registrar responsible for verifying certain aspects of your > identity. We already know that those who want more surveillance and > control of registrants want registrars to be more restrictive and take > on a bigger role vetting who is registering domains. This idea is also > very bad for the registrars, because if a registrar is making the > decision about whether you are a legal or natural person, then the > registrar will be legally liable for the decision. Further down the > road, those who want a more restrictive internet will love the > precedent set, they will ask the registrars to do more and more to vet > and regulate their customers. > > I believe that Stephanie has good motives for her position; as I > understand it she thinks that if registrars have this ability to > decide for the registrant, they will err on the side of > non-disclosure. But this is very na?ve. Yes, some of the registrars we > are dealing with in EPDP are sincere supporters of their customers > privacy. But others are not. Further, Stephanie is forgetting about > the fact that many registrars are operating in authoritarian countries > where individual rights are not respected. I am also deeply troubled > by a position that registrants are children who cannot take care of > themselves. I think Stephanie?s position is also motivated by the view > that we are better off if there is no differentiation at all. This may > be true, but it is unrealistic. The default policy, ALREADY, is that > registrars will be able to differentiate if they want to. I am trying > to plan for the possibility that many of them will want to. If they > do, we want registrants to be in control of their status, not > registrars or any other third party allegedly acting on their behalf. > > My hope is that the membership and the PC will resolve this issue in > favor of the ?registrant in control? position. > > Sorry for the long message > > Dr. Milton L Mueller > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > School of Public Policy > > IGP_logo_gold block > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 16925 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bruna.mrtns at gmail.com Mon Apr 26 16:44:58 2021 From: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com (Bruna Martins dos Santos) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 10:44:58 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CSG session with NCSG at icann71 Message-ID: Hello everyone, Hope this email finds you well and safe! Last week Wolf-Ulrich wrote me an email inquiring about our interest in hosting a NCSG and CSG session at ICANN71. According to his suggestion, some of our discussion topics could be drawn from the once planned NCPH meeting for last year (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yhAcdNRQxaIZw7NEk1-NKTft0jEP-sMgvRyWjXGw3bw/edit?disco=AAAAEBNYc88&ts=5df7af50 ). What do we say about this ? Given that our plans for the NCPH intersessional had to be cancelled, I believe this would be a good thing. I will, therefore, wait for your input on this topic until tomorrow COB. Best, -- *Bruna Martins dos Santos * Advocacy Coordinator | Data Privacy Brazil Research Member | Coaliz?o Direitos na Rede Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus Twitter: @boomartins // Skype: bruna.martinsantos bruna at dataprivacybr.org and bruna.mrtns at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Mon Apr 26 17:26:47 2021 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:26:47 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CSG session with NCSG at icann71 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <369B55DE-EB47-4D63-8AC3-A2A9ABC85008@gatech.edu> Fine with me to meet, looks like the agenda items would have to be updated quite a lot Milton Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Apr 26, 2021, at 09:45, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote: ? Hello everyone, Hope this email finds you well and safe! Last week Wolf-Ulrich wrote me an email inquiring about our interest in hosting a NCSG and CSG session at ICANN71. According to his suggestion, some of our discussion topics could be drawn from the once planned NCPH meeting for last year (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yhAcdNRQxaIZw7NEk1-NKTft0jEP-sMgvRyWjXGw3bw/edit?disco=AAAAEBNYc88&ts=5df7af50). What do we say about this ? Given that our plans for the NCPH intersessional had to be cancelled, I believe this would be a good thing. I will, therefore, wait for your input on this topic until tomorrow COB. Best, -- Bruna Martins dos Santos Advocacy Coordinator | Data Privacy Brazil Research Member | Coaliz?o Direitos na Rede Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus Twitter: @boomartins // Skype: bruna.martinsantos bruna at dataprivacybr.org and bruna.mrtns at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Tue Apr 27 05:01:57 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:01:57 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for Volunteers - GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Outputs for ICANN Board Consideration Message-ID: Dear members, There is a running public proceeding seeking to obtain community input prior to the Board consideration on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Outputs. Please let me know off-list if you'd like to volunteer for the comment drafting. It'll be nice to have more than one volunteer. The comment period closes on 01 June 2021. More information on the public comment can be found here : https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-gtld-subsequent-procedures-final-outputs-2021-04-22-en A draft Google doc for the comment can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R6aZr6T7urEQdlCLsRk_wjNr4HMqDN7P08F1UyeRyBo/edit?usp=sharing You can find previous NCSG comments here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2021 Regards, Tomslin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Tue Apr 27 07:23:19 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:23:19 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CSG session with NCSG at icann71 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sounds like a good idea Bruna. Tomslin On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 23:45, Bruna Martins dos Santos < bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Hope this email finds you well and safe! > > Last week Wolf-Ulrich wrote me an email inquiring about our interest in > hosting a NCSG and CSG session at ICANN71. According to his suggestion, > some of our discussion topics could be drawn from the once planned NCPH > meeting for last year (see > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yhAcdNRQxaIZw7NEk1-NKTft0jEP-sMgvRyWjXGw3bw/edit?disco=AAAAEBNYc88&ts=5df7af50 > ). > > What do we say about this ? Given that our plans for the NCPH > intersessional had to be cancelled, I believe this would be a good thing. > > I will, therefore, wait for your input on this topic until tomorrow COB. > > Best, > -- > > *Bruna Martins dos Santos * > > Advocacy Coordinator | Data Privacy Brazil Research > > > Member | Coaliz?o Direitos na Rede > Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN > > Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus > > Twitter: @boomartins // Skype: > bruna.martinsantos > bruna at dataprivacybr.org and bruna.mrtns at gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Thu Apr 29 07:06:20 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 14:06:20 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] DRAFT COMMENT - GNSO Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process Phase 1 Final Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear members and PC, We have a draft comment on this proceeding which has been kindly drafted by Pedro de Perdig?o found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sfowGrsBgwwCieCaKpSFnpPRiFelOAxyAK0THFbj6io/edit?usp=sharing Unfortunately, we have only 2 days to review/edit. So could members, especially the PC please review? Cheers, Tomslin On Tue., 13 Apr. 2021, 21:36 Tomslin Samme-Nlar, wrote: > Dear members, > > There is a running public proceeding seeking to obtain community input > prior to the Board action on the Phase 1 final recommendations of the GNSO > Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs Policy > Development Process (PDP) > > Please let me know off-list if you'd like to volunteer for the comment > drafting. It'll be nice to have more than one volunteer. > > The comment period closes on 30 April 2021. > > More information on the public comment can be found here : > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-rpm-pdp-phase-1-final-recommendations-2021-04-07-en > > A draft Google doc for the comment can be found here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sfowGrsBgwwCieCaKpSFnpPRiFelOAxyAK0THFbj6io/edit?usp=sharing > > You can find previous NCSG comments here: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2021 > > Regards, > Tomslin > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Fri Apr 30 23:55:34 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Sat, 1 May 2021 06:55:34 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] DRAFT COMMENT - GNSO Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process Phase 1 Final Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, This public comment proceeding has been extended by 21 days. There is therefore enough time now to review and make it better, if need be. Please consider reviewing the draft, which again can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sfowGrsBgwwCieCaKpSFnpPRiFelOAxyAK0THFbj6io/edit?usp=sharing Cheers, Tomslin On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 14:06, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > Dear members and PC, > > We have a draft comment on this proceeding which has been kindly drafted > by Pedro de Perdig?o found here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sfowGrsBgwwCieCaKpSFnpPRiFelOAxyAK0THFbj6io/edit?usp=sharing > > Unfortunately, we have only 2 days to review/edit. So could members, > especially the PC please review? > > Cheers, > Tomslin > > > On Tue., 13 Apr. 2021, 21:36 Tomslin Samme-Nlar, > wrote: > >> Dear members, >> >> There is a running public proceeding seeking to obtain community input >> prior to the Board action on the Phase 1 final recommendations of the GNSO >> Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs Policy >> Development Process (PDP) >> >> Please let me know off-list if you'd like to volunteer for the comment >> drafting. It'll be nice to have more than one volunteer. >> >> The comment period closes on 30 April 2021. >> >> More information on the public comment can be found here : >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-rpm-pdp-phase-1-final-recommendations-2021-04-07-en >> >> A draft Google doc for the comment can be found here: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sfowGrsBgwwCieCaKpSFnpPRiFelOAxyAK0THFbj6io/edit?usp=sharing >> >> You can find previous NCSG comments here: >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2021 >> >> Regards, >> Tomslin >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: