From brenda.brewer at icann.org Tue May 4 23:13:28 2021 From: brenda.brewer at icann.org (Brenda Brewer) Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 20:13:28 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Monthly Policy call | 17 May at 11:30 UTC Message-ID: <649E932C-4D77-4DAC-8AA8-4BC60CF434D4@icann.org> Good day all! Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 17 May 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: NCSG Monthly Policy call 17 May 11-30 UTC.ics Type: text/calendar Size: 2469 bytes Desc: NCSG Monthly Policy call 17 May 11-30 UTC.ics URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Thu May 6 04:22:14 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 11:22:14 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Option 1 In-Reply-To: References: <20210504143439.Horde.M8ZbHhnA7iGK_AfbHTrOu84@a2plcpnl0836.prod.iad2.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Dear members, First, I want to thank the EPDP members and everyone who is contributing to this debate. Much appreciated. While following the debate and reading the arguments assiduously, the question that kept coming to mind as policy chair is if there is a due date for us to have decided what the NCSG position is. I note that in the EPDP WG communication and as indicated by Stephanie in a separate email yesterday, the EPDP Team is to review updated version of the legal v. natural write up and indicate which aspects they can't live with by Friday 7 May. I suppose this means we need to provide an agreed guidance on an NCSG position to our EPDP team reps by this date, which leaves us with only one day to conclude on this. >From the discussion so far, *Option 1- the Status Quo* seem to have the most support from membership. Can anyone else who is against this option being the NCSG position please state their objection by 13:00 UTC 6 May? This should give us some time before Friday to agree. Absent a significant number of objections, *Option 1 - the Status Quo* will be the NCSG position on this matter. Cheers, Tomslin Policy Chair On Thu., 6 May 2021, 08:31 Stephanie E Perrin, < stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> wrote: > I agree that the RrSg work on this is useful and to be encouraged, but I > think the only way to keep it from becoming mandatory, either through > policy or through inclusion in their contracts or through the upcoming > accuracy pdp is to make it voluntary RrSg advice, not EPDP policy or > guidance. It is well within their mandate to publish it themselves and you > can see from the comments on the google document, the pressure to make > options MUST instead of May Wish to...... > > cheers Stephanie > > PS there is also a big question of co-controller liability on the part of > ICANN, for the accuracy and reliability of this guidance > On 2021-05-05 2:42 a.m., ??? Manju Chen wrote: > > Hi all, > > I agree with Stephanie and Kathy that we have to 'hold the line', but my > idea of 'the line' is a bit different than the simple 'status quo'. > > In my opinion, the line we should definitely hold is 'to keep the guidance > from becoming a requirement'. So we maintain that 'registrars should be > able to choose to differentiate or not' but develop guidance for if they > wish to do so. Basically Milton's scenario 3. > > I'd also like to point out that according to Volker's statement on behalf > of RrSG, they are not against developing guidance either. In fact, the RrSG > has provided a table as their proposed guidance on this matter. I would > encourage us to work with CPs on refining the table and make sure the final > guidance resembles RrSG's table instead of the detailed instructions > currently proposed by the surveillance caucus. > > Best, > Manju > > On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 11:39 AM Mueller, Milton L > wrote: > >> Kathy, Stephanie, and NCSG members: >> >> >> >> Personally, I would have no problem falling in line with your position. >> But there are two fatal flaws that you need to address. First, you are >> describing only what _*we*_ want and not thinking at all about how you >> get consensus. Second, your description of what we want does NOT correspond >> to what will actually happen if we ?hold the line.? As much as I would like >> to promote harmony and unity among NCSG EPDP representatives, I don?t think >> you have thought things through. >> >> >> >> I know perfectly well that we don?t want any differentiation and that the >> registrars don?t either. What you are overlooking is that the other half of >> the EPDP does want it, and the board will see the EPDP as deadlocked. So >> Option 1 will make you feel very self-righteous in the short term, but what >> happens next? You are, as I will show, leading us down a blind alley. >> >> >> >> I can think of 3 scenarios we can discuss as a basis for action. >> >> >> >> Scenario 1. >> >> We ?hold the line,? and we revert to Phase 1 recommendations unchanged. >> There is _*no guidance*_. The other half of the EPDP just gives up and >> accepts it. This result is not bad, I admit, if that last bit happens. >> >> But what are the Phase 1 recommendations? You have misrepresented the >> ?status quo? as not differentiating legal and natural. WRONG. What will >> happen under this option is that any registrar or registry can choose to >> differentiate in any way they like. And there will be no guidance that you >> can appeal to if they do it wrong. You say you don?t want registrars asking >> users whether they are legal or natural. Well, sorry, that can happen under >> your Option 1. A deadlock on EPDP means that differentiation is neither >> prohibited or required, it is up to the contracted parties. Many registrars >> won?t do it, but some will. Registries could do it, too. This is the ?let >> the market decide? option. Stephanie has become a libertarian, I guess. >> >> >> >> Scenario 2 >> >> Scenario 1 assumes the other side accepts defeat. But what if we ?hold >> the line,? and the other half of the EPDP doesn?t accept it? The European >> Commission, the US justice department, the GAC, SSAC, and of course the >> IPC/BC and ALAC join a strong chorus telling the board ?something must be >> done.? The Board is influenced, and refuses to accept the recommendation, >> as it has done with the SSAD (which the same group of stakeholders >> opposed). We have seen the Board cave to GAC and governmental demands again >> and again, the latest example being ?curative rights? for IGO acronyms, >> which the GNSO never approved. Worse, the EC may modify its NIS2 >> legislation to require ICANN to differentiate. The US congress could >> intervene. The issue festers for another three ? five years. Several >> powerful players start attacking the multistakeholder process. Maybe ICANN >> corrupts its process once again. >> >> >> >> Scenario 3 >> >> Scenario 3 is that we don?t require differentiation of legal persons, but >> we develop consensus guidance on how contracted parties should do it if >> they choose to do it. This is the most likely scenario, and it?s one that >> your position paper completely ignores. If you do want guidance, the >> approach to guidance that I have suggested is best, because it is a very >> lightweight process of self-identification by registrants. By offering some >> differentiation it may defuse the opposition of the other stakeholders. On >> the other hand Stephanie?s complicated, expensive and power-surrendering >> approach is not the kind of guidance we want. >> >> >> >> By now it should be clear to anyone who?s read this far that Scenario 1 >> is not as wonderful as you say and may not be possible. The EPDP is already >> deeply invested in developing guidance about how registrars should and >> should not differentiate. We have been working on it for weeks. Unless >> something changes radically in the next week, we will actually produce some >> guidance about differentiation. So, I suggest that we confine our debate to >> Scenario 2: the developing of nonbinding guidance. I suggest again that >> allowing registrants to choose to identify their registration as one of a >> legal person, with their data published or automatically available via >> SSAD, creates a path to consensus and to resolving the issue, whereas your >> preferred path does not. >> >> >> >> To conclude, I call your attention to a pathology that is paralyzing >> nearly all of ICANN?s working groups. Defining your position and ?holding >> the line? is a strategy that all the SGs and ACs seem to adopt now. It >> turns all these deliberations into a bunch of people re-stating their >> position again and again for 3-4 years, re-litigating issues endlessly, >> avoiding any serious middle ground. No thought is given to finding a >> solution that achieves a critical mass of consensus. >> >> >> >> Anyone who wants to be a serious participant in developing the NCSG?s >> position in EPDP has to answer a very basic question: >> >> >> >> How does this end? >> >> What is your scenario for achieving the level of agreement needed to pass >> a policy? >> >> >> >> Looking forward to your response. >> >> >> >> Dr. Milton L Mueller >> >> Georgia Institute of Technology >> >> School of Public Policy >> >> Internet Governance Project >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* NCSG-Discuss *On Behalf Of * >> kathy at DNRC.TECH >> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 4, 2021 5:35 PM >> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> *Subject:* Option 1 >> >> >> >> Tx to Milton, Stephanie, Manju, Tapani, Farzi, Mark Leiser, Kim von Arx >> and everyone else who commented on our dicussion of options for the EPDP. >> >> As it's time to wrap up this issue so our EPDP members can present our >> view to the EPDP Group, I co-wrote the email Stephanie posted earlier today >> (attached below too). Best regards, Kathy >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Fellow NCSG members, >> >> >We would like to work together to share our rationale for Option 1 ? >> >> maintaining the status quo and not asking further follow-up questions, >> mandatory or otherwise, about legal and natural persons. While the EPDP >> phase 2a discussions have been an educational and interesting exercise, we >> are not under any obligation to change the existing policy, or further >> complicate it. >> >> As we have all discussed, legal/natural person questions are very >> complicated for many of our members who are often noncommercial and >> non-profit organizations whose structure and ways of obtaining domain names >> do not resemble those of the large corporations other stakeholder groups >> represent. Our members may have many layers of privacy protection in >> less-well-known sections of the GDPR, other local law, Constitutions and >> international conventions. >> >> We learned that recent studies show that 50% of gTLD domain name >> registrations are for natural persons ? and at least 25% more have >> overlapping entity and personal data (e.g., the organization name has >> personal data in it and is thus protected as personal data). >> >> Stephanie and Kathy shared their concerns for legal/natural person >> questions during our long work on the Proxy and Privacy Accreditation >> Working Group. We worked closely with the Registrars Stakeholder Group to >> protect registrant privacy ? including Battered Women?s Shelters, family >> planning clinics, and girls educational institutions ? all of which may be >> legal entities, but have protectable data due to obvious danger from >> disclosure in certain countries. >> >> *In light of the complicated world around us, we support Option 1- the >> Status Quo. * We ask the NCSG to adopt this as our stance. *Based on >> the existing policy which makes differentiation of legal/natural persons >> optional for each registrar, we believe we already have the* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> * - best way to fight DNS Abuse, - best way to protect >> individuals and noncommercial organizations, and - best way to >> follow GDPR and other applicable human rights and free speech laws >> Therefore, we recommend NCSG ?hold the line? and stick with Option 1.* >> >> *As the Registrars wrote in their EPDP Statement on Thursday April 29: **We >> have heard plenty of vocal support in this group to [differentiate between >> legal and natural persons in a mandatory fashion], but to date the RrSG >> have not heard any compelling reason to create policy that makes this >> dramatic shift to the domain registration landscape.* >> >> *We agree. * Nothing will stop other stakeholder groups from demanding >> further disclosure of data, and lobbying other parties including >> governments. *What we can do in ICANN is come up with the best solution >> for us at this time.* >> >> Many thanks to the members of our NCSG EPDP Team for your hard work. This >> has been a long road. With new studies, new information and legal >> opinions, we think we have a clear and strategic path forward. We believe >> our position to be closely aligned with that of the Registrar Stakeholder >> Group, which they articulated on April 29 (see below). >> >> Best, Kathy Kleiman and Stephanie Perrin >> >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> The Registrar Stakeholder Group issued their position statement on >> Thursday (4/29): >> >> The members of the RrSG EPDP team have participated in this process in >> good faith since day one and will continue to do so; however, we need to be >> crystal clear that members of our Stakeholder Group, whom we are here to >> represent, have voiced and recently reconfirmed their strong opposition to >> any policy coming out of this group that makes differentiation between >> natural and legal persons for domain registrations mandatory. >> >> We have heard plenty of vocal support in this group to do just that, but >> to date the RrSG have not heard any compelling reason to create policy that >> makes this dramatic shift to the domain registration landscape. The >> Contracted Party can make the most accurate assessment of their own legal, >> technical, and commercial risks and obligations, and is the only party that >> can determine what level of risk they should assume. The scope of this EPDP >> Phase 2a is to consider if changes are required for the relevant >> Recommendation; it has become clear through this process that no such >> changes are required >> >> To the extent this group can focus its energies on guidance to contracted >> parties which choose on their own to make this differentiation, we continue >> to believe that is a worthwhile exercise. We believe that guidance >> materials including educational information provided by ICANN in multiple >> languages would help contracted parties educate registrants and this would >> be a valuable effort. >> >> That said, based on analysis done by our stakeholder group's members, we >> reject the notion that the majority of registered domain names are >> registered to legal entities. We further remind this team that we have not >> yet seen evidence that increased publication of registration data will >> address any of the problems which have been mentioned so far in this phase, >> and that the registration data is reliably and promptly available to those >> who do have a legitimate reason to access it. >> >> Finally we note that this statement represents the official position of >> the Registrar Stakeholder group, and statements from members of other >> groups participating in the EPDP do not represent our group?s position. >> >> *(Source: Transcript of EPDP-Phase 2A Team Call, 29 April 2021, Statement >> of Volker Greimann on behalf of the Registrars Stakeholder Group read into >> the record)* >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farell at benin2point0.org Thu May 6 11:34:00 2021 From: farell at benin2point0.org (Farell FOLLY) Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 10:34:00 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Option 1 In-Reply-To: References: <20210504143439.Horde.M8ZbHhnA7iGK_AfbHTrOu84@a2plcpnl0836.prod.iad2.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Hello Tomslin, Regarding the facts and the scenarios that have been so far presented, I also have no other choice than supporting option 1 by now. @__f_f__ Best regards ____________________________________ Lt-Colonel Farell FOLLY, Ir GNSO Councillor linkedin.com/in/farellf > On 6 May 2021, at 03:22, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > > > While following the d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Thu May 6 12:03:10 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 19:03:10 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Option 1 In-Reply-To: References: <20210504143439.Horde.M8ZbHhnA7iGK_AfbHTrOu84@a2plcpnl0836.prod.iad2.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Hi Milton My apologies if I inaccurately characterised the debate. My understanding was that Option 1 includes - not supporting guidance by the EPDP. But like you said, I might be wrong. Can I ask those arguing for Option 1 to help clarify this please? Regards Tomslin On Thu, 6 May 2021, 12:01 pm Mueller, Milton L, wrote: > Tomslin > > You and the PC are correct to intervene here! > > > > But you are also guilty of a seriously inaccurate characterization of the > debate. > > There is no evidence for your claim that Option 1 has the most support. > Look back over the emails of the past few days. Kathy and Stephanie have > supported it. Manju and I have opposed it (in that we both have expressed > support for guidance.) That?s it. > > > > You will find a few other statements for ?no differentiation? but as I > have shown Option 1 does not prevent differentiation, it simply allows > Contracted Parties to do it. Many members are still confused about this. > > > > So I am going to have to demand a restatement of the option before us: > > > > Guidance or No guidance? I will not accept any decision that is not based > on people expressing one of those two, because it is not a real position. > > > > --MM > > > > > > > > *From:* NCSG-Discuss *On Behalf Of *Tomslin > Samme-Nlar > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:22 PM > *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > *Subject:* Re: Option 1 > > > > Dear members, > > > > First, I want to thank the EPDP members and everyone who is contributing > to this debate. Much appreciated. > > > > While following the debate and reading the arguments assiduously, the > question that kept coming to mind as policy chair is if there is a due date > for us to have decided what the NCSG position is. > > > > I note that in the EPDP WG communication and as indicated by Stephanie in > a separate email yesterday, the EPDP Team is to review updated version of > the legal v. natural write up and indicate which aspects they can't live > with by Friday 7 May. I suppose this means we need to provide an agreed > guidance on an NCSG position to our EPDP team reps by this date, which > leaves us with only one day to conclude on this. > > > > From the discussion so far, *Option 1- the Status Quo* seem to have the > most support from membership. Can anyone else who is against this option > being the NCSG position please state their objection by 13:00 UTC 6 May? > This should give us some time before Friday to agree. Absent a significant > number of objections, *Option 1 - the Status Quo* will be the NCSG > position on this matter. > > > > Cheers, > Tomslin > > Policy Chair > > > > > On Thu., 6 May 2021, 08:31 Stephanie E Perrin, < > stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> wrote: > > I agree that the RrSg work on this is useful and to be encouraged, but I > think the only way to keep it from becoming mandatory, either through > policy or through inclusion in their contracts or through the upcoming > accuracy pdp is to make it voluntary RrSg advice, not EPDP policy or > guidance. It is well within their mandate to publish it themselves and you > can see from the comments on the google document, the pressure to make > options MUST instead of May Wish to...... > > cheers Stephanie > > PS there is also a big question of co-controller liability on the part of > ICANN, for the accuracy and reliability of this guidance > > On 2021-05-05 2:42 a.m., ??? Manju Chen wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I agree with Stephanie and Kathy that we have to 'hold the line', but my > idea of 'the line' is a bit different than the simple 'status quo'. > > > > In my opinion, the line we should definitely hold is 'to keep the guidance > from becoming a requirement'. So we maintain that 'registrars should be > able to choose to differentiate or not' but develop guidance for if they > wish to do so. Basically Milton's scenario 3. > > > > I'd also like to point out that according to Volker's statement on behalf > of RrSG, they are not against developing guidance either. In fact, the RrSG > has provided a table as their proposed guidance on this matter. I would > encourage us to work with CPs on refining the table and make sure the final > guidance resembles RrSG's table instead of the detailed instructions > currently proposed by the surveillance caucus. > > > > Best, > > Manju > > > > On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 11:39 AM Mueller, Milton L > wrote: > > Kathy, Stephanie, and NCSG members: > > > > Personally, I would have no problem falling in line with your position. > But there are two fatal flaws that you need to address. First, you are > describing only what _*we*_ want and not thinking at all about how you > get consensus. Second, your description of what we want does NOT correspond > to what will actually happen if we ?hold the line.? As much as I would like > to promote harmony and unity among NCSG EPDP representatives, I don?t think > you have thought things through. > > > > I know perfectly well that we don?t want any differentiation and that the > registrars don?t either. What you are overlooking is that the other half of > the EPDP does want it, and the board will see the EPDP as deadlocked. So > Option 1 will make you feel very self-righteous in the short term, but what > happens next? You are, as I will show, leading us down a blind alley. > > > > I can think of 3 scenarios we can discuss as a basis for action. > > > > Scenario 1. > > We ?hold the line,? and we revert to Phase 1 recommendations unchanged. > There is _*no guidance*_. The other half of the EPDP just gives up and > accepts it. This result is not bad, I admit, if that last bit happens. > > But what are the Phase 1 recommendations? You have misrepresented the > ?status quo? as not differentiating legal and natural. WRONG. What will > happen under this option is that any registrar or registry can choose to > differentiate in any way they like. And there will be no guidance that you > can appeal to if they do it wrong. You say you don?t want registrars asking > users whether they are legal or natural. Well, sorry, that can happen under > your Option 1. A deadlock on EPDP means that differentiation is neither > prohibited or required, it is up to the contracted parties. Many registrars > won?t do it, but some will. Registries could do it, too. This is the ?let > the market decide? option. Stephanie has become a libertarian, I guess. > > > > Scenario 2 > > Scenario 1 assumes the other side accepts defeat. But what if we ?hold the > line,? and the other half of the EPDP doesn?t accept it? The European > Commission, the US justice department, the GAC, SSAC, and of course the > IPC/BC and ALAC join a strong chorus telling the board ?something must be > done.? The Board is influenced, and refuses to accept the recommendation, > as it has done with the SSAD (which the same group of stakeholders > opposed). We have seen the Board cave to GAC and governmental demands again > and again, the latest example being ?curative rights? for IGO acronyms, > which the GNSO never approved. Worse, the EC may modify its NIS2 > legislation to require ICANN to differentiate. The US congress could > intervene. The issue festers for another three ? five years. Several > powerful players start attacking the multistakeholder process. Maybe ICANN > corrupts its process once again. > > > > Scenario 3 > > Scenario 3 is that we don?t require differentiation of legal persons, but > we develop consensus guidance on how contracted parties should do it if > they choose to do it. This is the most likely scenario, and it?s one that > your position paper completely ignores. If you do want guidance, the > approach to guidance that I have suggested is best, because it is a very > lightweight process of self-identification by registrants. By offering some > differentiation it may defuse the opposition of the other stakeholders. On > the other hand Stephanie?s complicated, expensive and power-surrendering > approach is not the kind of guidance we want. > > > > By now it should be clear to anyone who?s read this far that Scenario 1 is > not as wonderful as you say and may not be possible. The EPDP is already > deeply invested in developing guidance about how registrars should and > should not differentiate. We have been working on it for weeks. Unless > something changes radically in the next week, we will actually produce some > guidance about differentiation. So, I suggest that we confine our debate to > Scenario 2: the developing of nonbinding guidance. I suggest again that > allowing registrants to choose to identify their registration as one of a > legal person, with their data published or automatically available via > SSAD, creates a path to consensus and to resolving the issue, whereas your > preferred path does not. > > > > To conclude, I call your attention to a pathology that is paralyzing > nearly all of ICANN?s working groups. Defining your position and ?holding > the line? is a strategy that all the SGs and ACs seem to adopt now. It > turns all these deliberations into a bunch of people re-stating their > position again and again for 3-4 years, re-litigating issues endlessly, > avoiding any serious middle ground. No thought is given to finding a > solution that achieves a critical mass of consensus. > > > > Anyone who wants to be a serious participant in developing the NCSG?s > position in EPDP has to answer a very basic question: > > > > How does this end? > > What is your scenario for achieving the level of agreement needed to pass > a policy? > > > > Looking forward to your response. > > > > Dr. Milton L Mueller > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > School of Public Policy > > Internet Governance Project > > > > > > > > *From:* NCSG-Discuss *On Behalf Of * > kathy at DNRC.TECH > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 4, 2021 5:35 PM > *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > *Subject:* Option 1 > > > > Tx to Milton, Stephanie, Manju, Tapani, Farzi, Mark Leiser, Kim von Arx > and everyone else who commented on our dicussion of options for the EPDP. > > As it's time to wrap up this issue so our EPDP members can present our > view to the EPDP Group, I co-wrote the email Stephanie posted earlier today > (attached below too). Best regards, Kathy > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Fellow NCSG members, > > >We would like to work together to share our rationale for Option 1 ? > > maintaining the status quo and not asking further follow-up questions, > mandatory or otherwise, about legal and natural persons. While the EPDP > phase 2a discussions have been an educational and interesting exercise, we > are not under any obligation to change the existing policy, or further > complicate it. > > As we have all discussed, legal/natural person questions are very > complicated for many of our members who are often noncommercial and > non-profit organizations whose structure and ways of obtaining domain names > do not resemble those of the large corporations other stakeholder groups > represent. Our members may have many layers of privacy protection in > less-well-known sections of the GDPR, other local law, Constitutions and > international conventions. > > We learned that recent studies show that 50% of gTLD domain name > registrations are for natural persons ? and at least 25% more have > overlapping entity and personal data (e.g., the organization name has > personal data in it and is thus protected as personal data). > > Stephanie and Kathy shared their concerns for legal/natural person > questions during our long work on the Proxy and Privacy Accreditation > Working Group. We worked closely with the Registrars Stakeholder Group to > protect registrant privacy ? including Battered Women?s Shelters, family > planning clinics, and girls educational institutions ? all of which may be > legal entities, but have protectable data due to obvious danger from > disclosure in certain countries. > > *In light of the complicated world around us, we support Option 1- the > Status Quo. * We ask the NCSG to adopt this as our stance. *Based on the > existing policy which makes differentiation of legal/natural persons > optional for each registrar, we believe we already have the* > > > > > > > > * - best way to fight DNS Abuse, - best way to protect > individuals and noncommercial organizations, and - best way to > follow GDPR and other applicable human rights and free speech laws > Therefore, we recommend NCSG ?hold the line? and stick with Option 1.* > > *As the Registrars wrote in their EPDP Statement on Thursday April 29: **We > have heard plenty of vocal support in this group to [differentiate between > legal and natural persons in a mandatory fashion], but to date the RrSG > have not heard any compelling reason to create policy that makes this > dramatic shift to the domain registration landscape.* > > *We agree. * Nothing will stop other stakeholder groups from demanding > further disclosure of data, and lobbying other parties including > governments. *What we can do in ICANN is come up with the best solution > for us at this time.* > > Many thanks to the members of our NCSG EPDP Team for your hard work. This > has been a long road. With new studies, new information and legal > opinions, we think we have a clear and strategic path forward. We believe > our position to be closely aligned with that of the Registrar Stakeholder > Group, which they articulated on April 29 (see below). > > Best, Kathy Kleiman and Stephanie Perrin > > --------------------------------------------------------- > The Registrar Stakeholder Group issued their position statement on > Thursday (4/29): > > The members of the RrSG EPDP team have participated in this process in > good faith since day one and will continue to do so; however, we need to be > crystal clear that members of our Stakeholder Group, whom we are here to > represent, have voiced and recently reconfirmed their strong opposition to > any policy coming out of this group that makes differentiation between > natural and legal persons for domain registrations mandatory. > > We have heard plenty of vocal support in this group to do just that, but > to date the RrSG have not heard any compelling reason to create policy that > makes this dramatic shift to the domain registration landscape. The > Contracted Party can make the most accurate assessment of their own legal, > technical, and commercial risks and obligations, and is the only party that > can determine what level of risk they should assume. The scope of this EPDP > Phase 2a is to consider if changes are required for the relevant > Recommendation; it has become clear through this process that no such > changes are required > > To the extent this group can focus its energies on guidance to contracted > parties which choose on their own to make this differentiation, we continue > to believe that is a worthwhile exercise. We believe that guidance > materials including educational information provided by ICANN in multiple > languages would help contracted parties educate registrants and this would > be a valuable effort. > > That said, based on analysis done by our stakeholder group's members, we > reject the notion that the majority of registered domain names are > registered to legal entities. We further remind this team that we have not > yet seen evidence that increased publication of registration data will > address any of the problems which have been mentioned so far in this phase, > and that the registration data is reliably and promptly available to those > who do have a legitimate reason to access it. > > Finally we note that this statement represents the official position of > the Registrar Stakeholder group, and statements from members of other > groups participating in the EPDP do not represent our group?s position. > > *(Source: Transcript of EPDP-Phase 2A Team Call, 29 April 2021, Statement > of Volker Greimann on behalf of the Registrars Stakeholder Group read into > the record)* > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Thu May 6 15:43:22 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 22:43:22 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP P2a - Whether and how to differentiate between legal vs natural persons Message-ID: Dear PC, As you've read and followed on the members' list, we need to provide guidance to the EPDP team on what the NCSG position is on the question of whether and how to differentiate between legal vs natural persons. Options have been discussed, which has now morphed into whether: 1. the EPDP should NOT provide guidance to contracted parties (who wish to differentiate between legal vs natural persons) or 2. whether the group should provide one. Can I ask what the PC members think about what the official position should be based on the debate thus far? If I can get your responses by 23:00 UTC 6 May, it will be great, since the team has to report the position tomorrow 7 May. Regards, Tomslin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca Fri May 7 04:17:58 2021 From: stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca (Stephanie E Perrin) Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 21:17:58 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] EPDP P2a - Whether and how to differentiate between legal vs natural persons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <672bf796-64e1-457c-4c89-00d4c1b64a4d@digitaldiscretion.ca> as you know, I support option 1 with no guidance.? Let the registrars do it themselves with their own members, then they can control it and not be pushed into mandatory practices and accuracy reviews. cheers Stephanie PS and thanks to Milton for compromising, it really is much appreciated!? we had a good day today at the meeting.? Thanks to the team for all their support, and to Kathy Kleiman for jumping in and helping us get to a shared view on the matters. the flood of documents is just neverending, and as Manju said to day, it is inhumane, even for a Taiwanese student use to ridiculous loads of homework.? We do have lives outside ICANN..... On 2021-05-06 8:43 a.m., Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > Dear PC, > > As you've read and followed on the members' list, we need to provide > guidance to the EPDP team on what the NCSG position is on the question > of whether and how to differentiate between legal vs natural persons. > > Options have been discussed, which has now morphed into whether: > > 1. the EPDP should NOT provide guidance to contracted parties (who > wish to differentiate between legal vs natural persons) or > 2. whether the group should provide one. > > Can I ask what the PC members think about what the official position > should be based on the debate thus far? If I can get your responses by > 23:00 UTC 6 May, it will be great, since the team has to report the > position tomorrow 7 May. > > Regards, > Tomslin > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Tue May 11 13:29:18 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 20:29:18 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] UPDATED Proposed Agenda GNSO Council Meeting - 20 May 2021 at 19:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <91416243c31d4b33a603b0d8ccda9881@icann.org> References: <91416243c31d4b33a603b0d8ccda9881@icann.org> Message-ID: FYI Cheers, Tomslin ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Michelle DeSmyter via council Date: Tue., 11 May 2021, 12:25 Subject: [council] UPDATED Proposed Agenda GNSO Council Meeting - 20 May 2021 at 19:00 UTC To: council at gnso.icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org * Dear all, Please find below the final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 20 May 2021 at 19:00 UTC. * *Draft GNSO Council Agenda 20 May 2021 * Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/1YO1CQ This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures [gnso.icann.org] v3.5, updated on 24 October 2019 For convenience: - An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. - An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. GNSO Council meeting held 19:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time: 19:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/kd22xp43 [tinyurl.com] 12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris; 22:00 Moscow; (Friday) 05:00 Melbourne GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: *https://icann.zoom.us/j/91968032290?pwd=N1pXV3ZvaGxZREVYMjhWemo3TVlPZz09* [icann.zoom.us] Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________ *Item 1: Administrative Matters (10 mins)* 1.1 - Roll Call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes [gnso.icann.org] of the GNSO Council meeting on 08 April 2021 were posted on 22 April 2021. Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 22 April 2021 were posted on xx May 2021. *Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes)* 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List [gnso.icann.org] and Action Item List. *Item 3: Consent **Agenda** (5 minutes) * - Appointment of the GNSO Council liaison to the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure Operational Design Phase - Janis Karklins *Item 4: **COUNCIL** VOTE - *Adoption of the motion for the GNSO Council response [gnso.icann.org] to GAC ICANN70 Communique 4.1 Presentation of motion (Council leadership) 4.2 Council discussion 4.3 Council vote (Voting Threshold: Simple Majority vote of each House) *Item 5: **COUNCIL** VOTE - Initiation of the Expedited Policy Development Process on Internationalized Domain Names and Approval of the EPDP Team Charter (20 minutes)* During the Council?s October 2020 meeting, the Council agreed to launch a call for volunteers and to establish a drafting team to develop a draft charter and an EPDP initiation request for the IDN Policy Track 2. The Council agreed at the time that an EPDP was appropriate [gnso.icann.org] for this topic because it has been ?substantially scoped previously such that extensive, pertinent background information already exists? which at this stage, also includes the IDN-related Outputs from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP that the Council approved [gnso.icann.org] on 18 February 2021. That drafting team met for the first time on 8 December 2020 and since then has steadily made progress, recently completing its work prior to the May Council meeting. On 10 May 2021, the drafting team shared the Expedited Policy Development Process on Internationalized Domain Names Initiation Request and Charter with the Council. [LINKS TO BE PROVIDED WHEN AVAILABLE] Here, the Council will vote to initiate the Expedited Policy Development Process on Internationalized Domain Names, as well as to adopt the Charter. 5.1 - Brief presentation on the topic (Dennis Tan, Chair of drafting team) 5.2 - Presentation of motion (Maxim Alzoba) 5.3 ? Council discussion 5.4 ? Council vote (voting threshold: GNSO Supermajority for both the initiation of the EPDP and for approval of the EPDP Team Charter) *Taking this action is within the GNSO?s remit as outlined in ICANN?s Bylaws as the GNSO ?shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws? (Art.11.1). Furthermore, this action complies with the requirements set out in Annex A: GNSO Policy Development Process and Annex A-1: GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process of the ICANN Bylaws.* *Item 6: **COUNCIL** BRIEFING - Briefing on SAC115 (30 minutes)* The topic of DNS abuse was not explicitly identified in the charter of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (SubPro). However, it was a topic of interest identified by the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT), which made recommendations regarding the subject. In considering the CCT-RT Final Report, the ICANN Board took varying actions on 35 total recommendations, accepting some, passing through others, and placing some in a pending status (see scorecard ). SubPro considered the CCT-RT recommendations related to DNS abuse (i.e., 14, 15, and 16) though they remain in a ?Pending? status? (with the exception of recommendation 16, which was partially passed through) and have not been approved by the ICANN Board. On 27 April 2020, the SubPro Co-Chairs sent a letter [gnso.icann.org] to the GNSO Council to share the then current thinking of the Working Group on the topic of DNS abuse, which was to recommend that a holistic solution will be needed in all gTLDs, not just new gTLDs. The Council was briefed on this expectation during its May 2020 Council meeting. The Board took further action on some of the pending recommendations during its meeting in October of 2020, approving recommendation 16, though 14 and 15 remain in a pending state (see scorecard [icann.org] ). The SubPro WG has since submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council, confirming its approach to not make DNS abuse recommendations, and instead suggesting the holistic approach to all gTLDs; the GNSO Council adopted the Final Report and relevant Outputs during its February 2021 Council meeting. The GNSO Council has not decided whether to take any actions on DNS abuse as it seeks to better understand the community?s definitions of DNS abuse and where there remain gaps in the community?s ability to combat DNS abuse in an effective manner. As part of this educational and level-setting exercise, the GNSO Council received a briefing from the Contracted Parties House DNS Abuse Group to provide an update on its work and to facilitate a discussion on the topic during its 22 April 2021 meeting. The level-setting exercise continues with a briefing from the SSAC on SAC115 . Here, the Council will receive an update from the SSAC on SAC115 and engage in dialogue on DNS abuse. 6.1 ? Introduction of topic (Council Leadership) 6.2 ? Briefing and Council discussion (SSAC members names to be added upon receipt) 6.3 ? Next steps *Item 7: **COUNCIL** DISCUSSION - IGO Work Track Update (15 minutes)* On 18 April 2019, the Council voted to approve recommendations 1-4 of the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG. The Council also resolved to not approve Recommendation 5 and, ?directs the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPM) PDP to consider, as part of its Phase 2 work, whether an appropriate policy solution can be developed that is generally consistent with Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report and: - accounts for the possibility that an IGO may enjoy jurisdictional immunity in certain circumstances; - does not affect the right and ability of registrants to file judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction; - preserves registrants? rights to judicial review of an initial UDRP or URS decision; and - recognizes that the existence and scope of IGO jurisdictional immunity in any particular situation is a legal issue to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.? In respect of that resolution, the GNSO Council prepared an Addendum [gnso.icann.org] to the RPMs PDP charter to support work related to Recommendation 5 and approved [gnso.icann.org] it during its January 2020 Council meeting. During its September 2020 Council meeting, the Council agreed to initiate both the Expressions of Interest process to identify a single, qualified Work Track Chair and issue a call for Members and Observers to join the IGO Work Track. Led by Chris Disspain as the Chair, the Work Track has been meeting since late February of 2021. The Work Track has sought to make meaningful progress within the bounds of the Addendum, with members recognizing that this foundational discussion will influence how the group will work and thus, what its work plan should look like. During its April meeting, the Council received a brief update and acknowledged the work track?s Work Plan (April package here ). In chartering this work, the GNSO Council expected that the work should be completed in an efficient manner and that frequent updates to the Council would be helpful to ensure an effective outcome. After the brief update during the April meeting, the update during the May meeting is anticipated to be more detailed. Here, the Council will receive an update on the progress of the Work Track. 7.1 ? Update (John McElwaine, GNSO Council Liaison & Chris Dispain, WT Chair) 7.2 ? Council discussion 7.3 ? Next steps *Item 8: **COUNCIL** DISCUSSION - Status Update Regarding EPDP Phase 2A (10 minutes)* On 21 October 2020, the GNSO Council approved the initiation [gnso.icann.org] of EPDP Phase 2A, to examine the topics of legal/natural and feasibility of unique contacts. In doing so, the Council required that: "[a]t the latest 3 months after reconvening, the Chair of the EPDP Team and GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP will report back to the GNSO Council on the status of deliberations. Based on this report, which is expected to include an update on progress made and the expected likelihood of consensus recommendations, the GNSO Council will decide on next steps, which could include providing additional time for the EPDP to finalize its recommendations or termination of the EPDP if it is clear that no progress is being made or consensus is unlikely).? During the March Council meeting, the Chair of the EPDP Team and GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP shared a presentation and provided an update to the Council. The Council agreed that more time should be afforded to continue to make progress. The EPDP Team has since received responses from Bird & Bird to the EPDP Team?s Legal Committee?s questions and is considering that feedback in seeking to progress its work. Here, after having received a brief update durings its April meeting, the GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP will provide a more thorough update on the EPDP Team?s progress to the Council. 8.1 ? Introduction of topic (Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Council liaison & Keith Drazek, EPDP-P2A Chair) 8.2 ? Council discussion 8.3 ? Next steps *Item 9: **COUNCIL** DISCUSSION - Accuracy Scoping Team (15 minutes)* During its October 2020 meeting, the GNSO Council confirmed its intent to launch a scoping team on the topic of accuracy based on a proposal from the previous Council leadership team (see here [gnso.icann.org] for the proposal). On 4 November 2020, the GNSO Council wrote to ICANN org, requesting the preparation of a briefing document outlining both the existing accuracy requirements and programs as well as the impact that GDPR has had on implementing and enforcing the identified requirements and programs. This briefing is intended to inform an accuracy scoping team that the GNSO Council envisioned initiating, which would be tasked with furthering the community?s understanding of the issue and assist in scoping and defining the issue (see here [gnso.icann.org] ). On 10 December 2020, ICANN org responded to confirm its understanding of the request and to commit to delivering that briefing by 26 February 2021. ICANN org timely delivered the briefing . In addition to the briefing providing an overview of accuracy requirements and programs and the impact of GDPR on these, ICANN org also included a suggestion that a study to measure accuracy of registration data might be beneficial. In parallel to the request for the briefing, ICANN SO/AC/SG/Cs were requested to start thinking about whether their groups would be interested to participate in a scoping team once created. To date, the BC, ISPCP, RySG, IPC and GAC have expressed an interest and identified potential volunteers with relevant knowledge and expertise. The Council discussed this briefing and potential next steps during its Extraordinary Meeting on 08 April 2021. Following the meeting, Council leadership, with the support of the GNSO Support Staff, worked together to develop a set of proposed next steps for dealing with the topic of accuracy, which was shared on 23 April 2021. Feedback was sought from Councilors by 07 May 2021. Here, taking into account feedback received, the Council will discuss next steps for the scoping team. 9.1 ? Introduction of topic (Council Leadership) 9.2 ? Council discussion 9.3 ? Next steps *Item 10: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes)* 10.1 - Presentation of GNSO Council sessions for ICANN71 and their set up 10.2 - Next steps regarding the proposed Framework for Continuous Improvement _______________________________ Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article 11, Section 11.3(i)) See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11. Appendix 2: GNSO Council Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 4.4) See -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Thu May 13 13:48:57 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 20:48:57 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Policy call proposed agenda Message-ID: Dear PC, Please see below a proposed agenda for next week's policy call. Let me know if you'd like to add anything. 1. Introduction 2. Updates from the GNSO Council Action Decision Radar (ADR) 3. GNSO Council Agenda - Tatiana 4. NCSG Elections - Bruna 5. Policy & WG updates - Update from IGO WT - Update from EPDP Phase 2a 6. Public Comments 7. Any other business Tomslin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From compsoftnet at gmail.com Thu May 13 15:09:43 2021 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 13:09:43 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Policy call proposed agenda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for sharing the agenda. Comfortable with it. On Thu, 13 May 2021, 11:49 am Tomslin Samme-Nlar, wrote: > Dear PC, > > Please see below a proposed agenda for next week's policy call. Let me > know if you'd like to add anything. > > 1. Introduction > 2. Updates from the GNSO Council Action Decision Radar (ADR) > 3. GNSO Council Agenda - Tatiana > 4. NCSG Elections - Bruna > 5. Policy & WG updates > - Update from IGO WT > - Update from EPDP Phase 2a > 6. Public Comments > 7. Any other business > > > 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 Thu May 13 16:40:47 2021 From: PolicyCalendar at icann.org (ICANN Policy Calendar) Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 13:40:47 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] REMINDER: NCSG Monthly Policy call | 17 May| 11:30 UTC Message-ID: <60888d1614a74d13b7571febcb228fa4@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: 2479 bytes Desc: not available URL: From brenda.brewer at icann.org Thu May 13 16:43:37 2021 From: brenda.brewer at icann.org (Brenda Brewer) Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 13:43:37 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] FW: REMINDER: NCSG Monthly Policy call | 17 May at 11:30 UTC Message-ID: Good day all! Kind reminder of NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 17 May 2021 at 11:30 UTC. Additional time zone support here. Also note, calendar invites have been sent, join details below, and .ics is attached. Thank you! Kind regards, Brenda & Maryam From: Brenda Brewer Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 3:13 PM To: NCSG List , "ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is" Cc: Maryam Bakoshi , Brenda Brewer Subject: NCSG Monthly Policy call | 17 May at 11:30 UTC Good day all! Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 17 May 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: NCSG Monthly Policy call 17 May 11-30 UTC.ics Type: text/calendar Size: 2469 bytes Desc: NCSG Monthly Policy call 17 May 11-30 UTC.ics URL: From wisdom.dk at gmail.com Fri May 14 11:54:32 2021 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 08:54:32 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CSG session with NCSG at icann71 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good idea Bruna. On Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 1:45 PM 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 Fri May 14 15:26:21 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 22:26:21 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] FW: REMINDER: NCSG Monthly Policy call | 17 May at 11:30 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you, Brenda for the reminder. Dear all, see below the agenda for the meeting: 1. Introduction 2. Updates from the GNSO Council Action Decision Radar (ADR) 3. GNSO Council Agenda - Tatiana 4. NCSG Elections - Bruna 5. Policy & WG updates 6. - Update from IGO WT - Update from EPDP Phase 2a 7. Public Comments 8. Any other business Cheers, Tomslin On Thu., 13 May 2021, 23:43 Brenda Brewer, wrote: > Good day all! > > > > Kind reminder of* NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 17 May 2021 at > 11:30 UTC. *Additional time zone support here > > . > > Also note, calendar invites have been sent, join details below, and .ics > is attached. Thank you! > > > > Kind regards, > > Brenda & Maryam > > > > > > *From: *Brenda Brewer > *Date: *Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 3:13 PM > *To: *NCSG List , "ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is" < > ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> > *Cc: *Maryam Bakoshi , Brenda Brewer < > brenda.brewer at icann.org> > *Subject: *NCSG Monthly Policy call | 17 May at 11:30 UTC > > > > Good day all! > > > > *Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 17 May 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 at digitaldiscretion.ca Fri May 14 16:40:52 2021 From: stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 09:40:52 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] CSG session with NCSG at icann71 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <27C43795-50FE-4A70-923C-B97E030B18FD@digitaldiscretion.ca> Great idea, lets do it! Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 27, 2021, at 00:23, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > > ? > Sounds like a good idea Bruna. > > Tomslin > > > >> On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 23:45, 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 mesumbeslin at gmail.com Mon May 17 10:35:23 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 17:35:23 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Accuracy scoping team - proposed next steps In-Reply-To: <6261_1619214231_60833F97_6261_250_1_B5939C6860701C49AA39C5DA5189448B9D0E7F21@OPEXCAUBMA1.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <6261_1619214231_60833F97_6261_250_1_B5939C6860701C49AA39C5DA5189448B9D0E7F21@OPEXCAUBMA1.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Message-ID: Dear PC and councillors, As you can see, I missed this important information for 10 days, but better late than never. Especially since this item is on the May 20th meeting agenda for discussion. I would like to know your thoughts, views and thoughts about the proposed next steps attached. Perhap, even a common position going into the meeting? Regards, Tomslin ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: philippe.fouquart--- via council Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 at 07:44 Subject: [council] Accuracy scoping team - proposed next steps To: GNSO Council List Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Dear Councillors, Following our extraordinary meeting on 8 April 2021, Council leadership, with the support of the GNSO Support Staff, has worked together to develop a set of proposed next steps for dealing with the topic of accuracy. The proposed next steps aim to find a balance between the different viewpoints that have been expressed on this topic while at the same time recognizing our commitment to fact-based policy development. The Council leadership?s expectation is that by focusing on identifying and confirming the problem(s) (if any), the scoping team will be in a much better position to recommend to the Council what next steps to take. We would like to request that you review the attached document with your respective groups and indicate *by Friday 7 May at the latest* if you have any significant concerns or objections about the proposed next steps. If no concerns or objections are raised, Council leadership will include formal confirmation of these next steps on the consent agenda for the Council meeting on 20 May 2021. We would also like to request Jeffrey, as the Council liaison to the GAC, to share this message with his GAC point of contact for the GAC?s information, making clear that this document is still subject to change, as the GAC has expressed interest in this topic in its recent engagements with the GNSO Council. Regards, Pam, Tanya & Philippe _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Accuracy scoping team - proposed next steps - 23 April 2021.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 201253 bytes Desc: not available URL: From PolicyCalendar at icann.org Mon May 17 14:07:16 2021 From: PolicyCalendar at icann.org (ICANN Policy Calendar) Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 11:07:16 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] REMINDER: NCSG Monthly Policy call | 17 May| 11:30 UTC Message-ID: <924c5b927a454dbeab41cac66039c97b@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: 2477 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bruna.mrtns at gmail.com Mon May 17 14:34:49 2021 From: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com (Bruna Martins dos Santos) Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 08:34:49 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] FW: REMINDER: NCSG Monthly Policy call | 17 May at 11:30 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, I would like to state my apologies for not being able to join today's call. I had a last min emergency due to a water leak in the apartment above mine that I really need to sort out. Tatiana and Tomslin, I have also sent you both an email highlighting some of the key dates of the election timeline for the agenda item of ncsg elections. Best, Bruna On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 9:26 AM Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > Thank you, Brenda for the reminder. > > Dear all, see below the agenda for the meeting: > > 1. Introduction > 2. Updates from the GNSO Council Action Decision Radar (ADR) > 3. GNSO Council Agenda - Tatiana > 4. NCSG Elections - Bruna > 5. Policy & WG updates > 6. > - Update from IGO WT > - Update from EPDP Phase 2a > 7. Public Comments > 8. Any other business > > > Cheers, > Tomslin > > > On Thu., 13 May 2021, 23:43 Brenda Brewer, > wrote: > >> Good day all! >> >> >> >> Kind reminder of* NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 17 May 2021 at >> 11:30 UTC. *Additional time zone support here >> >> . >> >> Also note, calendar invites have been sent, join details below, and .ics >> is attached. Thank you! >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Brenda & Maryam >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Brenda Brewer >> *Date: *Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 3:13 PM >> *To: *NCSG List , "ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is" >> >> *Cc: *Maryam Bakoshi , Brenda Brewer < >> brenda.brewer at icann.org> >> *Subject: *NCSG Monthly Policy call | 17 May at 11:30 UTC >> >> >> >> Good day all! >> >> >> >> *Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 17 May 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- *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 Sat May 29 09:47:26 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 16:47:26 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for Applications: Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) Message-ID: Dear members, Like I mentioned in our May NCSG policy call, the GNSO Council initiated an expedited policy development process (EPDP) on the Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and subsequently adopted the related EPDP Team Charter during its 20 May 2021 meeting. The charter of the EPDP requires us to appoint *up to 3 members* to the EPDP. As a result, this is a call to members interested in Internationalized Domain Names to please apply to represent NCSG in this policy development process. Your application should include all relevant details to demonstrate your knowledge in IDNs, the GNSO policy development process and any other relevant information for the NCSG Policy Committee?s consideration. Please also consider the below criteria which the GNSO Council considers to be important and a MUST for the group members to possess collectively: - Technical knowledge of IDNs, including but not limited to: IDN related SubPro PDP recommendations, RZ-LGR, IDN variant definition and management, IDN tables, IDN implementation guidelines, SSAC advices as they relate to IDNs, and other policy efforts listed in the Annex B of the GNSO Council IDN Scoping Team Final Report; direct experiences in ICANN?s IDN policy efforts is strongly preferred; - Technical, legal, and/or operational knowledge of ICANN policies and procedures as they relate to IDNs, including but not limited to: processes and procedures created for the 2012 New gTLD program, registration dispute resolution procedures and trademark protection mechanisms; - Technical knowledge of registry/registrar services and domain name life cycle as they relate to IDNs; - Familiarity with GNSO policy development processes; direct experience is strongly preferred; - Commitment to participating in EPDP Team meetings on a regular and ongoing basis; - Highly effective oral, written, and interpersonal communication skills (in simple, comprehensible English); - Ability to create factual, relevant and easily understandable messages, and able to succinctly deliver them to the EPDP Team; - 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 team of individuals with different backgrounds and interests in driving objectives; - Knowledge of EPDP Team discussions, actions taken at meetings, and deliverables; - Understanding of the perspectives and interests of the Members? own stakeholder group or constituency; - Understanding of what consensus means and how consensus-building process works; - Commitment to facilitate consensus by listening, explaining, mediating, proposing clear actions, and helping other Members; - Commitment to avoid blocking consensus by looking beyond the stakeholder group or constituency affiliation of other EPDP Team Members and judging proposals/positions on their merits; - Commitment to avoid re-litigating closed issues or deliberate obfuscation; - Commitment to review the Consensus Playbook and attend potential training related to the Playbook, facilitate consensus building by employing the tools and techniques as detailed in the playbook; - Maintain high personal levels of ethical conduct and integrity, including transparency of affiliation in the Statement of Interest (SOI), in treatment of others and respecting the professional reputation of all in the ICANN community. 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 14th June 2021. Regards, Tomslin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Sat May 29 10:34:22 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 17:34:22 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for Applications: GNSO PDP to Review the Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear members, I would like to bring to your attention that this opportunity is still open, since we didn't receive any applications when I sent the call out in April. Whilst the working group started their work on Friday, 14 May 2021, there is still an opportunity for us to appoint members to the policy working group before they go too far out with the work. In the meantime, I have signed myself up as an observer since the charter of the group requires that "*in the event a GNSO SG/C or SO/AC is unable to nominate a member, at least one observer (defined below) should be responsible for keeping their respective group informed of milestones and potential recommendations that may affect the group*". Especially considering the potential impact of this PDP and any change to the transfer policy to non-commercial users. Regards, Tomslin On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 07:51, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > 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: From wisdom.dk at gmail.com Sat May 29 14:17:03 2021 From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor) Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 11:17:03 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Call for Applications: GNSO PDP to Review the Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Tomslin, Kindly sign me up. Thank you, *WISDOM DONKOR* President & CEO Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org / www.afrigeocon.org Tel: +233 20 812 8851 Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom | Twitter: @wisdom_dk _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ICANN GNSO Council Member | UN IGF MAG Member | World Bank Independent Consultant | AU AFIGF Member | Ghana OGP Advisory Committee member | GSS SDGs Advisory Committee Member ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Specialization: E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet Governance, Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber Security, Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning & Management, On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 7:34 AM Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > Dear members, > > I would like to bring to your attention that this opportunity is still > open, since we didn't receive any applications when I sent the call out in > April. Whilst the working group started their work on Friday, 14 May 2021, > there is still an opportunity for us to appoint members to the policy > working group before they go too far out with the work. > > In the meantime, I have signed myself up as an observer since the charter > of the group requires that "*in the event a GNSO SG/C or SO/AC is unable > to nominate a member, at least one observer (defined below) should be > responsible for keeping their respective group informed of milestones and > potential recommendations that may affect the group*". Especially > considering the potential impact of this PDP and any change to the transfer > policy to non-commercial users. > > Regards, > Tomslin > > > > On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 07:51, Tomslin Samme-Nlar > wrote: > >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Mon May 31 13:50:01 2021 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 20:50:01 +1000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [ACTION] Appointment to PDP to Review the Transfer Policy Message-ID: Dear PC, I hope you all are well. Following the call and reminder, for volunteers to the PDP to Review the Transfer Policy, two members have kindly shown interest to be appointed to the WG. They are: 1. *Wisdom Donkor *and 2. *Farzaneh Badii* Since the working group already started work on May 14th 2021, please let us know if you have any objections to their appointment. Preferably by 23:00 UTC June 1st 2021. Best regards Tomslin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From oreoluwa at wtec.org.ng Mon May 31 14:31:03 2021 From: oreoluwa at wtec.org.ng (Oreoluwa Lesi) Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 12:31:03 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [ACTION] Appointment to PDP to Review the Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98C97E2F-05AD-43EF-B0F7-27D663BC5C0F@wtec.org.ng> No objections. Kind regards, Oreoluwa -- Oreoluwa Lesi Executive Director, Women's Technology Empowerment Centre (W.TEC) +234.803.621.1307, +234.813.339.9999 | www.wtec.org.ng | @wteconline > On 31 May 2021, at 11:50 AM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > > Dear PC, > > I hope you all are well. > > Following the call and reminder, for volunteers to the PDP to Review the Transfer Policy, two members have kindly shown interest to be appointed to the WG. They are: > Wisdom Donkor and > Farzaneh Badii > Since the working group already started work on May 14th 2021, please let us know if you have any objections to their appointment. Preferably by 23:00 UTC June 1st 2021. > > Best regards > Tomslin > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bruna.mrtns at gmail.com Mon May 31 14:32:43 2021 From: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com (Bruna Martins dos Santos) Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 08:32:43 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [ACTION] Appointment to PDP to Review the Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: <98C97E2F-05AD-43EF-B0F7-27D663BC5C0F@wtec.org.ng> References: <98C97E2F-05AD-43EF-B0F7-27D663BC5C0F@wtec.org.ng> Message-ID: Also no objections. And happy to see Farz back ! On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 8:31 AM Oreoluwa Lesi wrote: > No objections. > > Kind regards, > Oreoluwa > > -- > Oreoluwa Lesi > Executive Director, Women's Technology Empowerment Centre (W.TEC) > +234.803.621.1307, +234.813.339.9999 | www.wtec.org.ng | @wteconline > > > > > On 31 May 2021, at 11:50 AM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar > wrote: > > Dear PC, > > I hope you all are well. > > Following the call and reminder, for volunteers to the PDP to Review the > Transfer Policy, two members have kindly shown interest to be appointed to > the WG. They are: > > 1. *Wisdom Donkor *and > 2. *Farzaneh Badii* > > Since the working group already started work on May 14th 2021, please let > us know if you have any objections to their appointment. Preferably by > 23:00 UTC June 1st 2021. > > Best regards > Tomslin > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- *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 tatiana.tropina at gmail.com Mon May 31 14:33:16 2021 From: tatiana.tropina at gmail.com (Tatiana Tropina) Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 13:33:16 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [ACTION] Appointment to PDP to Review the Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So happy we have great members willing to serve on that team. I guess both are on the PC list, so thanks to you both!! Cheers Tanya On Mon, 31 May 2021 at 12:50, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > Dear PC, > > I hope you all are well. > > Following the call and reminder, for volunteers to the PDP to Review the > Transfer Policy, two members have kindly shown interest to be appointed to > the WG. They are: > > 1. *Wisdom Donkor *and > 2. *Farzaneh Badii* > > Since the working group already started work on May 14th 2021, please let > us know if you have any objections to their appointment. Preferably by > 23:00 UTC June 1st 2021. > > Best regards > Tomslin > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon May 31 15:56:11 2021 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie E Perrin) Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 08:56:11 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [ACTION] Appointment to PDP to Review the Transfer Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great news that we have two great candidates!? Thanks to Farz and Wisdom for coming forward. Stephanie On 2021-05-31 6:50 a.m., Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > *EXTERNAL EMAIL:* > Dear PC, > > I hope you all are well. > > Following the call and reminder, for volunteers to the PDP to Review > the Transfer Policy, two members have kindly shown interest to be > appointed to the WG. They are: > > 1. *Wisdom Donkor *and > 2. *Farzaneh Badii* > > Since the working group already started work on May 14th 2021, please > let us know if you have any objections to their appointment. > Preferably by 23:00 UTC June 1st 2021. > > Best regards > Tomslin > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: