From julf at Julf.com  Wed Mar  1 10:53:58 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 09:53:58 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] ICANN76 Board Questions/Topics
In-Reply-To: <CAM8DdeUCEqHeK21dbDU3ZP2ELsP9ttpigVA-+ViqJ9ByVnM26Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4BA8915F-74D6-476F-A26F-D08019A7616A@icann.org>
 <ca17d74a-3c31-d2f6-12ae-8a80803f9308@Julf.com>
 <CAM8DdeUCEqHeK21dbDU3ZP2ELsP9ttpigVA-+ViqJ9ByVnM26Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <90bc65ec-3412-2667-290d-08257b19def8@Julf.com>

Hi Tomslin,


It is a good question - my only concern is about taking it to the
board while the GNSO is still deliberating it and hasn't made
a recommendation.

	Julf

On 28/02/2023 21:48, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
> Hi Julf,
> 
> I am wondering if we could ask the board the following:
> 
> The GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI) Task Force has recommended that 
> participants must disclose the identities of their clients or the 
> employers they represent as a condition to participating in a working 
> group. We believe this should be done without exception to enhance 
> transparency and prevent group take-overs. What are the board's thoughts 
> on this?
> 
> 
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 at 01:48, Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC 
> <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
> 
>     Dear NCSG,
> 
>     It is time to decide what we want to take up in our meeting with the
>     Board in Cancun. The Board has asked the SO/AC:s one question:
> 
>     "The ICANN Board would like to explore how to combine the efficiencies
>     of an agile approach to problem solving, like the Council?s small
>     teams,
>     with the need for accountability and transparency, to make progress on
>     policy conversations. When would such an approach be most appropriate
>     and how can we ensure that it does not circumvent required steps in a
>     policy development process?"
> 
>     What are our thoughts?
> 
>     As to our questions to the board, here are our questions from the
>     previous meeting (as a reminder):
> 
>     - What is the Board?s take on the phenomenon of ICANN recycling veterans
>      ? for leadership positions. Does the Board think it?s beneficial
>     for the
>      ? community to have the usual suspects rotating between leadership
>     roles
>      ? of different stakeholder groups?? How do we fix this if we agree this
>      ? is a problem? How does the Board imagine its role in assisting the
>      ? community to recruit more new blood?
> 
>     - Is there a possibility of rebalancing the NomCom?
> 
>     - What efforts are channeled to keep the people in the community from
>      ? ?volunteer fatigue?
> 
>      ? ? ? ? Julf
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-EC mailing list
>     NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec>
> 


From julf at Julf.com  Wed Mar  1 10:59:03 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 09:59:03 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN76 Board Questions/Topics
In-Reply-To: <90bc65ec-3412-2667-290d-08257b19def8@Julf.com>
References: <4BA8915F-74D6-476F-A26F-D08019A7616A@icann.org>
 <ca17d74a-3c31-d2f6-12ae-8a80803f9308@Julf.com>
 <CAM8DdeUCEqHeK21dbDU3ZP2ELsP9ttpigVA-+ViqJ9ByVnM26Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <90bc65ec-3412-2667-290d-08257b19def8@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <80b5dbee-ca05-c500-240b-583da1d9a025@Julf.com>

Just as a reminder, here are the questions from our last
session with the board:

PDPs Effectiveness and Volunteer fatigue

     NCSG would like to discuss Board Approval, implementation by ICANN 
org and delays of several PDPs - something we have already discussed 
with you in previous occasions. If we look at processes such as the EPDP 
related ones I think we can find a good example due

     to the fact that even despite the fact that the board didn't yet 
approve phase 2 recommendation, which were submitted in 2020, there is 
talk about the design paper of SSAD light. And in the past years, I 
guess we started gathering more examples of where the development 
process drags on for far too long and the implementation becomes the 
place de facto to redo policy recommendations. So NCSG would like to 
request the board for comments about the current speed or even how do 
you plan to work together with GNSO and its groups on possible 
improvements to the PDPs timeline and so on.

      What efforts are channeled to keep the people in the community 
from volunteer fatigue?



Whois Disclosure System

     The recently published Whois Disclosure System design paper 
mentioned a risk that the system might not provide actionable data for 
use to answer questions raised by the SSAD ODA and this makes us a 
little concerned about the EPDP recommendations. The direction this work 
is going seems to point towards the intention to throw away the EPDP 
recommendations related to SSAD. I'd like to know what the board thinks 
about this concern.



ICANN Leadership positions

     What is the Board?s take on the phenomenon of ICANN recycling 
veterans for leadership positions. Does the Board think it?s beneficial 
for the community to have the usual suspects rotating between leadership 
roles of different stakeholder groups?  How do we fix this if we agree 
this is a problem? How does the Board imagine its role in assisting the 
community to recruit more new blood?


NomCom

     NCSG has been talking for a long time about the lack of proper 
representation at the NomCom, the current state of things is that this 
part of the community only holds one seat at the group - currently held 
by NCUC - and we trust this configuration is not really representative 
of the diversity of stakeholders within GNSO or even proportional if we 
consider that other SGs hold more than just one seat. Therefore we have 
a very simple question: is there a possibility of rebalancing the NomCom?

	Julf


From manju at nii.org.tw  Wed Mar  1 12:12:12 2023
From: manju at nii.org.tw (=?UTF-8?B?6Zmz5pu86Iy5IE1hbmp1IENoZW4=?=)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 18:12:12 +0800
Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN76 Board Questions/Topics
In-Reply-To: <80b5dbee-ca05-c500-240b-583da1d9a025@Julf.com>
References: <4BA8915F-74D6-476F-A26F-D08019A7616A@icann.org>
 <ca17d74a-3c31-d2f6-12ae-8a80803f9308@Julf.com>
 <CAM8DdeUCEqHeK21dbDU3ZP2ELsP9ttpigVA-+ViqJ9ByVnM26Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <90bc65ec-3412-2667-290d-08257b19def8@Julf.com>
 <80b5dbee-ca05-c500-240b-583da1d9a025@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <CAMeQZi3O+hAZ3oZOnM3HELNGf4Tgrb9+RbzupGTO7a-vnyecWg@mail.gmail.com>

My question:

1.
In her blog recapping the January workshop, Tripti suggested that the Board
'anticipates making incremental decisions leading up to the final decision
on opening a new application window for new gTLDs'. Can you elaborate on
what 'incremental decisions' are to be expected?

2.
Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of NCSG. In the SubPro ODA,
it was suggested that the applicant support program starts 18 months prior
to the anticipated application submission period opening. The ODA also
offered 2 options for implementing SubPro outputs, where option 2 only
requires 18 months of implementation. While the GGP continues its work, it
seems impossible to incorporate the Applicant Support Program in time for
the next round in the aggressive timeline of Option 2. While we appreciate
the org's effort in mitigating risks and enhancing efficiency by developing
option 2, the next round would be meaningless if we open it without a
meaningful and genuinely effective applicant support program. We have
received questions from the Board about how to be agile and come up with
new ways of working on issues to increase efficiency,. However, we fear
this desire to move things forward can damage the inclusive, diverse
multistakeholder model that defines ICANN. And Option 2 could be the exact
example. How does the Board plan to balance the desire to be agile without
compromising the due process, inclusiveness, and diversity of the
multistakeholder model in its deliberations, including SubPro ODA?

The second question is a bit wordy and I'm afraid not as clear. Appreciate
if anyone would help editing/rephrasing to make it clearer!


Best,
Manju

On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:59?PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:

> Just as a reminder, here are the questions from our last
> session with the board:
>
> PDPs Effectiveness and Volunteer fatigue
>
>      NCSG would like to discuss Board Approval, implementation by ICANN
> org and delays of several PDPs - something we have already discussed
> with you in previous occasions. If we look at processes such as the EPDP
> related ones I think we can find a good example due
>
>      to the fact that even despite the fact that the board didn't yet
> approve phase 2 recommendation, which were submitted in 2020, there is
> talk about the design paper of SSAD light. And in the past years, I
> guess we started gathering more examples of where the development
> process drags on for far too long and the implementation becomes the
> place de facto to redo policy recommendations. So NCSG would like to
> request the board for comments about the current speed or even how do
> you plan to work together with GNSO and its groups on possible
> improvements to the PDPs timeline and so on.
>
>       What efforts are channeled to keep the people in the community
> from volunteer fatigue?
>
>
>
> Whois Disclosure System
>
>      The recently published Whois Disclosure System design paper
> mentioned a risk that the system might not provide actionable data for
> use to answer questions raised by the SSAD ODA and this makes us a
> little concerned about the EPDP recommendations. The direction this work
> is going seems to point towards the intention to throw away the EPDP
> recommendations related to SSAD. I'd like to know what the board thinks
> about this concern.
>
>
>
> ICANN Leadership positions
>
>      What is the Board?s take on the phenomenon of ICANN recycling
> veterans for leadership positions. Does the Board think it?s beneficial
> for the community to have the usual suspects rotating between leadership
> roles of different stakeholder groups?  How do we fix this if we agree
> this is a problem? How does the Board imagine its role in assisting the
> community to recruit more new blood?
>
>
> NomCom
>
>      NCSG has been talking for a long time about the lack of proper
> representation at the NomCom, the current state of things is that this
> part of the community only holds one seat at the group - currently held
> by NCUC - and we trust this configuration is not really representative
> of the diversity of stakeholders within GNSO or even proportional if we
> consider that other SGs hold more than just one seat. Therefore we have
> a very simple question: is there a possibility of rebalancing the NomCom?
>
>         Julf
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230301/505aa1a0/attachment.htm>

From julf.helsingius at gmail.com  Wed Mar  1 13:03:06 2023
From: julf.helsingius at gmail.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 12:03:06 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN76 Board Questions/Topics
In-Reply-To: <CAMeQZi3O+hAZ3oZOnM3HELNGf4Tgrb9+RbzupGTO7a-vnyecWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4BA8915F-74D6-476F-A26F-D08019A7616A@icann.org>
 <ca17d74a-3c31-d2f6-12ae-8a80803f9308@Julf.com>
 <CAM8DdeUCEqHeK21dbDU3ZP2ELsP9ttpigVA-+ViqJ9ByVnM26Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <90bc65ec-3412-2667-290d-08257b19def8@Julf.com>
 <80b5dbee-ca05-c500-240b-583da1d9a025@Julf.com>
 <CAMeQZi3O+hAZ3oZOnM3HELNGf4Tgrb9+RbzupGTO7a-vnyecWg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f07c7ba6-56e9-121e-755c-60adcc61367d@gmail.com>

Great questions! Thanks!

Can anyone help streamline question 2? I would make an attempt,
but I am in transit right now...

	Julf


On 01/03/2023 11:12, ??? Manju Chen wrote:
> My question:
> 
> 1.
> In her blog recapping?the January workshop, Tripti suggested that the 
> Board 'anticipates making incremental decisions leading up to the final 
> decision on opening a new application window for new gTLDs'. Can you 
> elaborate on what 'incremental decisions' are to be expected?
> 
> 2.
> Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of NCSG. In the SubPro 
> ODA, it was suggested that the applicant support program starts 18 
> months prior to the anticipated application submission period opening. 
> The ODA also offered 2 options for implementing SubPro outputs, where 
> option 2 only requires 18 months of implementation. While the GGP 
> continues its work, it seems impossible to incorporate the Applicant 
> Support Program in time for the next round in the aggressive timeline of 
> Option 2. While we appreciate the org's effort in mitigating risks and 
> enhancing efficiency by developing option 2, the next round would be 
> meaningless if we open it without a meaningful and genuinely effective 
> applicant support program. We have received questions from the Board 
> about how to be agile and come up with new ways of working on issues to 
> increase efficiency,. However, we fear this desire to move things 
> forward can damage the inclusive, diverse multistakeholder model that 
> defines ICANN. And Option 2 could be the exact example. How does the 
> Board plan to balance the desire to be agile without compromising the 
> due process, inclusiveness, and diversity of the multistakeholder model 
> in its deliberations, including SubPro ODA?
> 
> The second question is a bit wordy and I'm afraid not as clear. 
> Appreciate if anyone would help editing/rephrasing to make it clearer!
> 
> 
> Best,
> Manju
> 
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:59?PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com 
> <mailto:julf at julf.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Just as a reminder, here are the questions from our last
>     session with the board:
> 
>     PDPs Effectiveness and Volunteer fatigue
> 
>      ? ? ?NCSG would like to discuss Board Approval, implementation by
>     ICANN
>     org and delays of several PDPs - something we have already discussed
>     with you in previous occasions. If we look at processes such as the
>     EPDP
>     related ones I think we can find a good example due
> 
>      ? ? ?to the fact that even despite the fact that the board didn't yet
>     approve phase 2 recommendation, which were submitted in 2020, there is
>     talk about the design paper of SSAD light. And in the past years, I
>     guess we started gathering more examples of where the development
>     process drags on for far too long and the implementation becomes the
>     place de facto to redo policy recommendations. So NCSG would like to
>     request the board for comments about the current speed or even how do
>     you plan to work together with GNSO and its groups on possible
>     improvements to the PDPs timeline and so on.
> 
>      ? ? ? What efforts are channeled to keep the people in the community
>     from volunteer fatigue?
> 
> 
> 
>     Whois Disclosure System
> 
>      ? ? ?The recently published Whois Disclosure System design paper
>     mentioned a risk that the system might not provide actionable data for
>     use to answer questions raised by the SSAD ODA and this makes us a
>     little concerned about the EPDP recommendations. The direction this
>     work
>     is going seems to point towards the intention to throw away the EPDP
>     recommendations related to SSAD. I'd like to know what the board thinks
>     about this concern.
> 
> 
> 
>     ICANN Leadership positions
> 
>      ? ? ?What is the Board?s take on the phenomenon of ICANN recycling
>     veterans for leadership positions. Does the Board think it?s beneficial
>     for the community to have the usual suspects rotating between
>     leadership
>     roles of different stakeholder groups?? How do we fix this if we agree
>     this is a problem? How does the Board imagine its role in assisting the
>     community to recruit more new blood?
> 
> 
>     NomCom
> 
>      ? ? ?NCSG has been talking for a long time about the lack of proper
>     representation at the NomCom, the current state of things is that this
>     part of the community only holds one seat at the group - currently held
>     by NCUC - and we trust this configuration is not really representative
>     of the diversity of stakeholders within GNSO or even proportional if we
>     consider that other SGs hold more than just one seat. Therefore we have
>     a very simple question: is there a possibility of rebalancing the
>     NomCom?
> 
>      ? ? ? ? Julf
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> 


From stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca  Wed Mar  1 16:09:12 2023
From: stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca (Digital)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 09:09:12 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN76 Board Questions/Topics
In-Reply-To: <f07c7ba6-56e9-121e-755c-60adcc61367d@gmail.com>
References: <f07c7ba6-56e9-121e-755c-60adcc61367d@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9EAA7C68-0ADC-4916-B6A1-4DA002B73175@digitaldiscretion.ca>

will work on it right now
Steph

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 1, 2023, at 08:50, Johan Helsingius <julf.helsingius at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ?[You don't often get email from julf.helsingius at gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> 
> Great questions! Thanks!
> 
> Can anyone help streamline question 2? I would make an attempt,
> but I am in transit right now...
> 
>       Julf
> 
> 
>> On 01/03/2023 11:12, ??? Manju Chen wrote:
>> My question:
>> 
>> 1.
>> In her blog recapping the January workshop, Tripti suggested that the
>> Board 'anticipates making incremental decisions leading up to the final
>> decision on opening a new application window for new gTLDs'. Can you
>> elaborate on what 'incremental decisions' are to be expected?
>> 
>> 2.
>> Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of NCSG. In the SubPro
>> ODA, it was suggested that the applicant support program starts 18
>> months prior to the anticipated application submission period opening.
>> The ODA also offered 2 options for implementing SubPro outputs, where
>> option 2 only requires 18 months of implementation. While the GGP
>> continues its work, it seems impossible to incorporate the Applicant
>> Support Program in time for the next round in the aggressive timeline of
>> Option 2. While we appreciate the org's effort in mitigating risks and
>> enhancing efficiency by developing option 2, the next round would be
>> meaningless if we open it without a meaningful and genuinely effective
>> applicant support program. We have received questions from the Board
>> about how to be agile and come up with new ways of working on issues to
>> increase efficiency,. However, we fear this desire to move things
>> forward can damage the inclusive, diverse multistakeholder model that
>> defines ICANN. And Option 2 could be the exact example. How does the
>> Board plan to balance the desire to be agile without compromising the
>> due process, inclusiveness, and diversity of the multistakeholder model
>> in its deliberations, including SubPro ODA?
>> 
>> The second question is a bit wordy and I'm afraid not as clear.
>> Appreciate if anyone would help editing/rephrasing to make it clearer!
>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> Manju
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:59?PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com
>> <mailto:julf at julf.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>    Just as a reminder, here are the questions from our last
>>    session with the board:
>> 
>>    PDPs Effectiveness and Volunteer fatigue
>> 
>>          NCSG would like to discuss Board Approval, implementation by
>>    ICANN
>>    org and delays of several PDPs - something we have already discussed
>>    with you in previous occasions. If we look at processes such as the
>>    EPDP
>>    related ones I think we can find a good example due
>> 
>>          to the fact that even despite the fact that the board didn't yet
>>    approve phase 2 recommendation, which were submitted in 2020, there is
>>    talk about the design paper of SSAD light. And in the past years, I
>>    guess we started gathering more examples of where the development
>>    process drags on for far too long and the implementation becomes the
>>    place de facto to redo policy recommendations. So NCSG would like to
>>    request the board for comments about the current speed or even how do
>>    you plan to work together with GNSO and its groups on possible
>>    improvements to the PDPs timeline and so on.
>> 
>>           What efforts are channeled to keep the people in the community
>>    from volunteer fatigue?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    Whois Disclosure System
>> 
>>          The recently published Whois Disclosure System design paper
>>    mentioned a risk that the system might not provide actionable data for
>>    use to answer questions raised by the SSAD ODA and this makes us a
>>    little concerned about the EPDP recommendations. The direction this
>>    work
>>    is going seems to point towards the intention to throw away the EPDP
>>    recommendations related to SSAD. I'd like to know what the board thinks
>>    about this concern.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    ICANN Leadership positions
>> 
>>          What is the Board?s take on the phenomenon of ICANN recycling
>>    veterans for leadership positions. Does the Board think it?s beneficial
>>    for the community to have the usual suspects rotating between
>>    leadership
>>    roles of different stakeholder groups?  How do we fix this if we agree
>>    this is a problem? How does the Board imagine its role in assisting the
>>    community to recruit more new blood?
>> 
>> 
>>    NomCom
>> 
>>          NCSG has been talking for a long time about the lack of proper
>>    representation at the NomCom, the current state of things is that this
>>    part of the community only holds one seat at the group - currently held
>>    by NCUC - and we trust this configuration is not really representative
>>    of the diversity of stakeholders within GNSO or even proportional if we
>>    consider that other SGs hold more than just one seat. Therefore we have
>>    a very simple question: is there a possibility of rebalancing the
>>    NomCom?
>> 
>>             Julf
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    NCSG-PC mailing list
>>    NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>    https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>    <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


From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Mar  1 16:22:37 2023
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie E Perrin)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 09:22:37 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN76 Board Questions/Topics
In-Reply-To: <9EAA7C68-0ADC-4916-B6A1-4DA002B73175@digitaldiscretion.ca>
References: <f07c7ba6-56e9-121e-755c-60adcc61367d@gmail.com>
 <9EAA7C68-0ADC-4916-B6A1-4DA002B73175@digitaldiscretion.ca>
Message-ID: <255ad497-4367-4f41-f61d-ceca82f285ad@mail.utoronto.ca>


On 2023-03-01 9:09 a.m., Digital wrote:
I am also throwing in a third question for your review.? I am probably 
in the minority in my lack of desire for travel these days, but it seems 
that we spend an inordinate amount of time planning for meetings that do 
very little to further our goals of inclusion, recruitment, and policy 
fairness.
So question 3 would be:
3.? Has the Board reviewed the effectiveness of the implementation of 
ICANN's mandate during the COVID lockdown?? How much money was saved by 
not travelling, and what were the impacts on policy effectiveness, 
outreach and inclusion?? Should ICANN continue to travel to the extent 
that it does, given concern for our carbon footprint?? what do we gain, 
and what do we lose with this attempt at global outreach and are there 
better ways to meet with different regional populations and markets?
> 1.
> In her blog recapping the January workshop, Tripti suggested that the
> Board 'anticipates making incremental decisions leading up to the final
> decision on opening a new application window for new gTLDs'. Can you
> elaborate on what 'incremental decisions' are to be expected?
> 2. Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of NCSG. The SubPro 
> ODA suggested that the applicant support program start 18 months prior 
> to the anticipated opening of the application submission period. The 
> ODA also offered 2 options for implementing SubPro outputs, where 
> option 2 would only require 18 months of implementation. While the GGP 
> continues its work, it seems impossible to incorporate the Applicant 
> Support Program in time for the next round in the aggressive timeline 
> of Option 2. We appreciate the org's effort in mitigating risks and 
> enhancing efficiency by developing option 2, but the NCSG feels 
> strongly that the next round will be unfair if we open it without a 
> meaningful and genuinely effective applicant support program.
> We have received questions from the Board about how to be agile and 
> come up with new ways of working on issues to increase efficiency,. 
> However, we fear this desire to move things forward can damage the 
> inclusive, diverse multistakeholder model that defines ICANN. Option 2 
> is a great example of this zeal for "agility" as opposed to 
> fundamental fairness and concern for small organizations in this 
> competitive environment. How does the Board plan to balance the desire 
> to be agile without compromising the due process, inclusiveness, and 
> diversity of the multistakeholder model in its deliberations, 
> particularly with respect to the SubPro ODA?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230301/1ddc022f/attachment.htm>

From jumaropi at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  1 23:42:28 2023
From: jumaropi at yahoo.com (Juan Manuel Rojas)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 21:42:28 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for Early Input - GNSO Transfer Policy
 Review PDP
In-Reply-To: <961a1da2-bb33-b18f-bb8f-a0bf2f80152f@Julf.com>
References: <CB97C0C4-14C4-4796-8115-47FC63235E73@icann.org>
 <961a1da2-bb33-b18f-bb8f-a0bf2f80152f@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <906007405.1653769.1677706948638@mail.yahoo.com>

Dear Julf and all, 
Those questions were the same were discussed on the last WG meeting. It is important to say that WG is now discussing about TEAC (Transfer Emergency Action Contact) and the call for input is to have the view from diverse opinions on this regard. In the meeting was made in survey mode. As far I understand this process is related to when the registrars need contact the registrant of a domain been transfered. 

My answer on the survey questions were:
1.Is additional data needed to support evaluation of the effectiveness of the TEAC mechanism?
As I said it was in survey mode inside Zoom room, there's no many information about the effectiveness of TEAC mechanism, so I answered YES. The next question is What data is needed? It wasn't on the survey what it was made, so here my answer is related to assess the mechanism, but I do not have more information
2. The time frame for registrants respond to communicatoins via TEAC channel, according with Status Quo said is 4 hours. So here my answer it was to let a window for at least 24 hours to respond. Here is important note that the time zone differences could be significant. And also the registrars will have to implement mechanisms to receive requests coming in other languagues than English. 

3. This question is similar to previous.

4. This question it was not on the survey made either. But I think about "Communications to a TEAC must be initiated in a timely manner". In order to being able to react if an small organization doesn't want to lose its domain I think a reasonable period of time would be a year later or let, at least, after renovation window (if apply) to use the dispute resolution process. 

 5. According to the survey this question is about the means of communication "the TEAC may be designated as a telephone number, and therefore some TEAC communications may take place by phone". Here my answer was directed that the contact should be made through e-mail also due to the fact that sometimes the phone is not enough to contact an organization or even their representative on this issues. 

Those were some of the question discussed on the last WG meeting, I think these answers can be helpful if anyone wants to add or amplify some of them. 

Best Regards,

JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
Director - MINKA DIGITAL ColombiaNPOC Policy Chair - NCSG/GNSO
Master IT candidate, UNAD
Registered Linux User No.533108.


Cel. +57 301 743 56 00
Instagram/Twitter:?@JmanuRojas





? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

    El martes, 28 de febrero de 2023, 03:34:43 p.?m. GMT-5, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> escribi?:  
 
 


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: ??? Request for Early Input - GNSO Transfer Policy Review PDP
Date: ??? Tue, 28 Feb 2023 20:26:53 +0000
From: ??? Devan Reed <devan.reed at icann.org>
To: ??? julf at julf.com <julf at julf.com>, Andrea Glandon 
<andrea.glandon at icann.org>
CC: ??? gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org>, Emily Barabas 
<emily.barabas at icann.org>, Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb at icann.org>, Julie 
Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, Caitlin Tubergen 
<caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>



Dear Julf,

Please find attached a request from the GNSO Transfer Policy Review 
Policy Development Process Working Group forinputfrom your group on 
Group 2 topics within the PDP?s charter. Responses are requested by 4 
April 2023 and may be sent tognso-secs at icann.org 
<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>.

Kind regards,

Devan

*Devan Reed*
Policy Development Support - TEMP
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

www.icann.org 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=5Q2VHFiILluU8bvJHD3YjtNb84SyquCx2HSNHYn1ybs&m=X5iO0FCI3T2FxZ0KhKQ1iY0GhPzLH7XaiK8LfLcHSPY&s=grheVbJRc-hQqrXXGzMqUK3Htr0S5Z74HFOhmrag-Js&e=>

cidimage001.png at 01D4E0C6.320C4B80
_______________________________________________
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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230301/62f8aeab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Transfer Policy Review PDP - Request for Early Input on Group 2 Topics .pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 184982 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230301/62f8aeab/attachment.pdf>

From julf at julf.com  Thu Mar  2 09:44:47 2023
From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 08:44:47 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for Early Input - GNSO Transfer Policy
 Review PDP
In-Reply-To: <906007405.1653769.1677706948638@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <CB97C0C4-14C4-4796-8115-47FC63235E73@icann.org>
 <961a1da2-bb33-b18f-bb8f-a0bf2f80152f@Julf.com>
 <906007405.1653769.1677706948638@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4c865d54-2672-c4b7-e80e-30fcf84a5a6a@julf.com>

Many thanks!

	Julf


On 01/03/2023 22:42, Juan Manuel Rojas wrote:
> Dear Julf and all,
> Those questions were the same were discussed on the last WG meeting. It 
> is important to say that WG is now discussing about TEAC (Transfer 
> Emergency Action Contact) and the call for input is to have the view 
> from diverse opinions on this regard. In the meeting was made in survey 
> mode. As far I understand this process is related to when the registrars 
> need contact the registrant of a domain been transfered.
> 
> My answer on the survey questions were:
> 
> 1.Isadditionaldata neededtosupport 
> evaluationoftheeffectivenessoftheTEACmechanism?
> As I said it was in survey mode inside Zoom room, there's no many 
> information about the effectiveness of TEAC mechanism, so I answered 
> YES. The next question is What data is needed? It wasn't on the survey 
> what it was made, so here my answer is related to assess the mechanism, 
> but I do not have more information
> 
> 2. The time frame for registrants respond to communicatoins via TEAC 
> channel, according with Status Quo said is 4 hours. So here my answer it 
> was to let a window for at least 24 hours to respond. Here is important 
> note that the time zone differences could be significant. And also the 
> registrars will have to implement mechanisms to receive requests coming 
> in other languagues than English.
> 
> 3. This question is similar to previous.
> 
> 4. This question it was not on the survey made either. But I think about 
> "Communications to a TEAC must be initiated in a timely manner". In 
> order to being able to react if an small organization doesn't want to 
> lose its domain I think a reasonable period of time would be a year 
> later or let, at least, after renovation window (if apply) to use the 
> dispute resolution process.
> 
> 5. According to the survey this question is about the means of 
> communication "theTEACmaybedesignated
> asa telephonenumber,andthereforesomeTEACcommunicationsmaytakeplace 
> byphone". Here my answer was directed that the contact should be made 
> through e-mail also due to the fact that sometimes the phone is not 
> enough to contact an organization or even their representative on this 
> issues.
> 
> Those were some of the question discussed on the last WG meeting, I 
> think these answers can be helpful if anyone wants to add or amplify 
> some of them.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> 
> *JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.*
> Director - MINKA DIGITAL Colombia
> NPOC Policy Chair - NCSG/GNSO
> Master IT candidate, UNAD
> Registered Linux User No.*533108.*
> 
> 
> /Cel. +57 301 743 56 00
> Instagram/Twitter: @JmanuRojas <http://www.twitter.com/jmanurojas>/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> El martes, 28 de febrero de 2023, 03:34:43 p.?m. GMT-5, Johan Helsingius 
> <julf at julf.com> escribi?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: ??? Request for Early Input - GNSO Transfer Policy Review PDP
> Date: ??? Tue, 28 Feb 2023 20:26:53 +0000
> From: ??? Devan Reed <devan.reed at icann.org <mailto:devan.reed at icann.org>>
> To: julf at julf.com <mailto:julf at julf.com> <julf at julf.com 
> <mailto:julf at julf.com>>, Andrea Glandon
> <andrea.glandon at icann.org <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org>>
> CC: gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> 
> <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>, Emily Barabas
> <emily.barabas at icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>, Berry Cobb 
> <Berry.Cobb at icann.org <mailto:Berry.Cobb at icann.org>>, Julie
> Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>, 
> Caitlin Tubergen
> <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org <mailto:caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>>
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Julf,
> 
> Please find attached a request from the GNSO Transfer Policy Review
> Policy Development Process Working Group forinputfrom your group on
> Group 2 topics within the PDP?s charter. Responses are requested by 4
> April 2023 and may be sent tognso-secs at icann.org 
> <mailto:tognso-secs at icann.org>
> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Devan
> 
> *Devan Reed*
> Policy Development Support - TEMP
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> 
> www.icann.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=5Q2VHFiILluU8bvJHD3YjtNb84SyquCx2HSNHYn1ybs&m=X5iO0FCI3T2FxZ0KhKQ1iY0GhPzLH7XaiK8LfLcHSPY&s=grheVbJRc-hQqrXXGzMqUK3Htr0S5Z74HFOhmrag-Js&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=5Q2VHFiILluU8bvJHD3YjtNb84SyquCx2HSNHYn1ybs&m=X5iO0FCI3T2FxZ0KhKQ1iY0GhPzLH7XaiK8LfLcHSPY&s=grheVbJRc-hQqrXXGzMqUK3Htr0S5Z74HFOhmrag-Js&e=>>
> 
> cidimage001.png at 01D4E0C6.320C4B80 <mailto:cidimage001.png at 01D4E0C6.320C4B80>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc 
> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>


From julf at julf.com  Thu Mar  2 11:17:57 2023
From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:17:57 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Board Seat 14 Nomination Procedures and Timeline
In-Reply-To: <b4bd9c07-00df-210b-672b-10b0f2848835@gmail.com>
References: <b4bd9c07-00df-210b-672b-10b0f2848835@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <29819f2f-90e4-296f-9cdd-52cf3f71cc2b@julf.com>

FYI...



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Board Seat 14 Nomination Procedures and Timeline
Date: 	Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:16:30 +0100
From: 	Johan Helsingius <julf.helsingius at gmail.com>
To: 	Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>
CC: 	Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie) <MCole at perkinscoie.com>, Tim Smith 
<tim.smith at cipa.com>, csg-excomm at ICANN.org <csg-excomm at icann.org>, Mohr, 
Susan <Susan.Mohr at lumen.com>, 'Brian King' <brian.king at clarivate.com>, 
philippe.fouquart at orange.com <philippe.fouquart at orange.com>



Dear Lori,

Thank you for the followup of our informative call.

It was of course disappointing to hear that you didn't
find Matthew a viable candidate, but we understand the
situation.

We really appreciate the effort you have taken in finding
and interviewing suitable candidates, and we will now do
the same. We are very keen to interview all the candidates
(apart from Heather who unfortunately withdrew), and will
also in parallel look for alternative candidates in case
it turns out none of the candidates you interviewed are
acceptable to the NCSG (in which case we will have to follow
the process set down in 2018 and try to come up with a
mutually acceptable candidate.

We also really appreciate the initiative to amend and extend
the procedure, and totally agree that we should properly
document our mutual understanding and agreement rather than
rely on verbal, undocumented discussions that are easy to
misinterpret or misremember.

We will discuss your suggested amendments in our executive and
policy committees and get back to you.

With kind regards,

 ??? Julf Helsingius, NCSG Chair



On 27/02/2023 19:38, Lori Schulman wrote:

> Dear Julf,
>
> Thank you for the very productive call.? This is the first of 2 emails 
> that I will send confirming our conversation.? The second will focus 
> on the ?building bridges? aspect of our conversation, NCPH common 
> priorities and a proposal for a virtual intersessional sometime 
> between April and July of this year.? Below, is the link to the agreed 
> upon Board selection process.? This is the formalized document from 
> 2018.? Also, below is the timeline for Board selection. We did not do 
> background checks on the candidates.? I think it makes more sense to 
> agree on the nominee and then ask ICANN for the check as it will save 
> time and money.
>
> The 2018 procedures do not envision alternating nominating 
> responsibilities for each side of our house.? However, my 
> understanding is that an informal agreement was made in 2020 to renew 
> Matthew Shears based on the agreement that the CSG would be 
> responsible for the 2023 nominee.? This is because, initially, there 
> was no consensus on renewing Matthew.? CSG agreed to the renewal in 
> order to give Matthew a change to improve and grow even if we had 
> reservations about his performance.? ??I was not on the CSG ExComm in 
> 2020 so I do not have any direct knowledge or emails to this effect.? 
> However, I do remember the issue being discussed with the IPC 
> membership at the time.? We agreed that to keep in peace in the house, 
> we would give Matthew a second chance. Matthew made promises that he 
> did not fulfill and, to his credit, admitted so in our interview 
> process this year.? CSG does not support Matthew for renewal in 2023.
>
> CSG offers Mark Datysgeld and Damon Ashcraft as an alternate slate of 
> candidates for Board Seat 14.? CSG supports both candidates strongly 
> as they are proven ICANN leaders and consensus builders.? Both bring 
> considerable skills to the table.? Mark is a young entrepreneur, 
> sitting GNSO counselor and deeply committed to GNSO policy work.? Mark 
> represents the population that ICANN is trying to reach to ensure its 
> future.? Damon has had leadership positions on NomCom and has received 
> outstanding 360 reviews.? Damon is a natural leader, consensus builder 
> and consistent ICANN volunteer.? He is committed to civil society 
> engagement through his community volunteering, numerous board 
> positions and pro bono work.? Both are excellent options. We wanted 
> NCSG to have a fair choice.? We believe that we are offering one.? We 
> do not wish to reach stalemate as that does not serve either side well.
>
> As a point of information, CSG interviewed 5 candidates and asked all 
> of them the same questions.? A copy of those questions is attached.? 
> The CSG ExCom met on 2 calls to discuss rankings and overall results 
> and came to our conclusion as to the proposed slate.? Once that 
> process was completed, I reached out to you as Chair of CSG.
>
> The candidates that were in considered in alphabetical order were:
>
> Damon Ashcraft
>
> Mark Datysgeld
>
> Heather Forrest (withdrawn)
>
> Matthew Shears
>
> Christine Willett
>
> In order to improve the process moving forward CSG proposes amending 
> the 2018 procedure to include a review and nominating process that 
> makes more sense for our mutual interests.? Below is a framework which 
> we would like to implement for 2026 and moving forward. ??It provides 
> for a review of the sitting Board 14 member and more balanced process 
> for nominations which should minimize stalemate.
>
> _Proposal for selecting a Seat 14 Board Candidate in 2026 and Beyond_
>
> __
>
> This proposal would serve as an Amendment to the 2018 agreement 
> referenced here: 
> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-7-ncph-election-procedures-seat-14-24oct19-en.pdf 
> and provide a more fair way of picking candidates including reviewing 
> the performance of the incumbent.? We happy to discuss with NCSG as 
> part of an intersessional
>
> __
>
>   * Align on selection and performance criteria for the Seat 14 Board
>     position.
>       o Selection criteria could include background, ICANN experience,
>         Board experience, etc.
>       o Performance criteria could include regular engagement with the
>         CSG and NCSG, understanding of CSG and NCSG priorities,
>         ability to advance these priorities while also considering the
>         overall priorities of the Board, etc.
>
>   * Conduct annual reviews of the current Seat 14 Board member?s
>     performance ? provide feedback to the Board member.?? The NomCom
>     model for performance reviews could be considered or a
>     modification thereof.
>
>   * Meet 3 months in advance of 3-year Seat 14 election to reach
>     majority/consensus on whether the current Seat 14 Board member?s
>     performance supports re-election to a 2^nd or 3^rd term (what is
>     the preferred standard ? majority or consensus or something else?)
>       o When the /consensus/majority/ conclusion is that the current
>         Seat 14 Board member /is performing well /based on objective
>         criteria, the current member will be the candidate for another
>         term unless they are termed out.
>       o When the /consensus/majority/ conclusion is that the current
>         Seat 14 Board member is /not performing/ and an alternative
>         should be selected, then selection of alternative candidates
>         will rotate between the CSG and NCSG.? All alternative
>         candidates proposed will be interviewed by both the CSG and
>         NCSG ex comm.? The CSG and NCSG will nominate a final
>         candidate based on a consensus/majority outcome.
>
>   * When Board members are termed out, the selection of proposed
>     candidates by either the CSG or NCSG will depend on which group
>     last selected a candidate.
>
>   * The Secretariat will keep a record of performance review outcomes
>     and the candidate selection ?turn? of the CSG and NCSG.
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Lori S. Schulman
>
> Senior Director, Internet Policy
>
> *International Trademark Association (INTA)*
>
> +1-202-704-0408, Skype:? LSSchulman
>
> lschulman at inta.org <mailto:lschulman at inta.org>, www.inta.org 
> <blocked::http://www.inta.org>
>
> *From:*Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 3, 2022 6:17 PM
> *To:* Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>; Benjamin Akinmoyeje 
> <benakin at gmail.com>; Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com>; 
> philippe.fouquart at orange.com; Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>; 
> Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie) <MCole at perkinscoie.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org; Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>; 
> Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Board Seat 14 timeline
>
> Dear Non Contracted Party House Chairs,
>
> As per theICANN Bylaws[icann.org] 
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_governance_bylaws-2Den-23VI-2D8.4%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DPDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG%26m%3DvQsdfuD5PAFi7ZqA8J-kf5fBuo9PeoBIsWVsGHh0AkM%26s%3DDVrXZ-Q2n7QzK-zkgttiirdC9ZYNujb8mdeVI0Z8D7I%26e%3D&data=05%7C01%7Clschulman%40inta.org%7C07c74a57b172486d641308dabdbf3d87%7C1b6dad14b17645319562fdf3080f9d47%7C0%7C0%7C638030926325475421%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MhVT8r%2FUqU6uloIDdoTJHwErkwIhfqIS5uAubLz8O7M%3D&reserved=0>, 
> Section 7.8.d. ?At least six months before the date specified for the 
> commencement of the term as specified in _Section 7.8(a)(iv)_?through 
> _Section 7.8(a)(vi)_?above, any?Supporting Organization?or the 
> At-Large Community entitled to nominate a Director for a Seat with a 
> term beginning that year shall give the?EC?Administration (with a copy 
> to the Secretary?and the Decisional Participants) written notice of 
> its nomination of Directors for seats with terms beginning at the 
> conclusion of the annual meeting, and the?EC?Administration shall 
> promptly provide the Secretary (with a copy to the Decisional 
> Participants) with written notice of the designation of those 
> Directors. All such notices shall be posted promptly to the Website.?
>
> With that in mind, staff has prepared a tentative Board Seat 14 
> election timeline below in accordance with the GNSO Operating 
> Procedures 2.4.2. Please note this has been produced taking into 
> account maximum duration possible for each time slot.*Election results 
> need therefore to be communicated _before the _**_29^th March 2023 for 
> the results to be confirmed during the April 2023 GNSO Council meeting_. *
>
>
> 	
>
> *Board seat 14 timeline***
>
> 	
> 	
>
> *Deadline:***
>
> 	
>
> *Not Later Than:***
>
> 	
>
> *Activity Commences:***
>
> 	
>
> *Maximum Duration:***
>
> 26 December 2022
>
> 	
>
> T ? 4 Months
>
> 	
>
> Call for Nominations
>
> 	
>
> 1 Month
>
> 26 January 2023
>
> 	
>
> T ? 3 Months
>
> 	
>
> Candidate Interviews
>
> 	
>
> 2 Weeks
>
> 15 February 2023
>
> 	
>
> T ? 10 Weeks
>
> 	
>
> First Round of Voting
>
> 	
>
> 2 Weeks
>
> 1 March 2023
>
> 	
>
> T ? 8 Weeks
>
> 	
>
> Second Round of Voting (if needed)
>
> 	
>
> 2 Weeks
>
> 15 March 2023
>
> 	
>
> T ? 6 Weeks
>
> 	
>
> Third Round of Voting (if needed)
>
> 	
>
> 2 Weeks
>
> 29 March 2023
>
> 	
>
> T ? 4 Weeks
>
> 	
>
> GNSO Secretariat Reports Election Results
>
> 	
>
> 3 Days
>
> 20 April 2023
>
> 	
>
> Next Council Meeting
>
> 	
>
> Confirmation of Election
>
> 	
>
> 3 Days
>
> 26 April 2023
>
> 	
>
> T
>
> 	
>
> _GNSO Chair Notifies Empowered Community Administration with a copy to 
> the Secretary of the election results as prescribed by Section 7.25 of 
> the ICANN Bylaw
> s. 
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fresources%2Fpages%2Fgovernance%2Fbylaws-en%23article7.25&data=05%7C01%7Clschulman%40inta.org%7C07c74a57b172486d641308dabdbf3d87%7C1b6dad14b17645319562fdf3080f9d47%7C0%7C0%7C638030926325475421%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2Bis6vVL1oyggjEzS9JY1pcUI38vqbyiaBvsfl529WpQ%3D&reserved=0>_
>
> 	
>
> 3 Days
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230302/2a5d494b/attachment.htm>

From julf at julf.com  Thu Mar  2 13:58:50 2023
From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 12:58:50 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Board Seat 14 Nomination Procedures and Timeline
In-Reply-To: <b4bd9c07-00df-210b-672b-10b0f2848835@gmail.com>
References: <b4bd9c07-00df-210b-672b-10b0f2848835@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d478ef62-a781-a384-c0bf-2c008850ddfe@julf.com>

(Corrected version - do not respond to previous one)

FYI...



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Board Seat 14 Nomination Procedures and Timeline
Date: 	Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:16:30 +0100
From: 	Johan Helsingius <julf.helsingius at gmail.com>
To: 	Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>
CC: 	Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie) <MCole at perkinscoie.com>, Tim Smith 
<tim.smith at cipa.com>, csg-excomm at ICANN.org <csg-excomm at icann.org>, Mohr, 
Susan <Susan.Mohr at lumen.com>, 'Brian King' <brian.king at clarivate.com>, 
philippe.fouquart at orange.com <philippe.fouquart at orange.com>



Dear Lori,

Thank you for the followup of our informative call.

It was of course disappointing to hear that you didn't
find Matthew a viable candidate, but we understand the
situation.

We really appreciate the effort you have taken in finding
and interviewing suitable candidates, and we will now do
the same. We are very keen to interview all the candidates
(apart from Heather who unfortunately withdrew), and will
also in parallel look for alternative candidates in case
it turns out none of the candidates you interviewed are
acceptable to the NCSG (in which case we will have to follow
the process set down in 2018 and try to come up with a
mutually acceptable candidate.

We also really appreciate the initiative to amend and extend
the procedure, and totally agree that we should properly
document our mutual understanding and agreement rather than
rely on verbal, undocumented discussions that are easy to
misinterpret or misremember.

We will discuss your suggested amendments in our executive and
policy committees and get back to you.

With kind regards,

  ??? Julf Helsingius, NCSG Chair



From julf at julf.com  Thu Mar  2 14:00:59 2023
From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 13:00:59 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] WARNING - read before responding: Re: Fwd: Board Seat 14
 Nomination Procedures and Timeline
In-Reply-To: <29819f2f-90e4-296f-9cdd-52cf3f71cc2b@julf.com>
References: <b4bd9c07-00df-210b-672b-10b0f2848835@gmail.com>
 <29819f2f-90e4-296f-9cdd-52cf3f71cc2b@julf.com>
Message-ID: <12d93b27-c603-d89d-de72-43172229b79f@julf.com>

Do not respond to first version of this message without removing
included part with confidential information.

	Julf

On 02/03/2023 10:17, Johan Helsingius wrote:
> FYI...
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: Board Seat 14 Nomination Procedures and Timeline
> Date: 	Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:16:30 +0100
> From: 	Johan Helsingius <julf.helsingius at gmail.com>
> To: 	Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>
> CC: 	Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie) <MCole at perkinscoie.com>, Tim Smith 
> <tim.smith at cipa.com>, csg-excomm at ICANN.org <csg-excomm at icann.org>, Mohr, 
> Susan <Susan.Mohr at lumen.com>, 'Brian King' <brian.king at clarivate.com>, 
> philippe.fouquart at orange.com <philippe.fouquart at orange.com>
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Lori,
> 
> Thank you for the followup of our informative call.
> 
> It was of course disappointing to hear that you didn't
> find Matthew a viable candidate, but we understand the
> situation.
> 
> We really appreciate the effort you have taken in finding
> and interviewing suitable candidates, and we will now do
> the same. We are very keen to interview all the candidates
> (apart from Heather who unfortunately withdrew), and will
> also in parallel look for alternative candidates in case
> it turns out none of the candidates you interviewed are
> acceptable to the NCSG (in which case we will have to follow
> the process set down in 2018 and try to come up with a
> mutually acceptable candidate.
> 
> We also really appreciate the initiative to amend and extend
> the procedure, and totally agree that we should properly
> document our mutual understanding and agreement rather than
> rely on verbal, undocumented discussions that are easy to
> misinterpret or misremember.
> 
> We will discuss your suggested amendments in our executive and
> policy committees and get back to you.
> 
> With kind regards,
> 
>  ??? Julf Helsingius, NCSG Chair


From julf at Julf.com  Fri Mar  3 14:37:38 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2023 13:37:38 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN FY25 Planning Prioritization Process - NCSG
 representative needed
Message-ID: <da90669e-7a05-1a0b-55b3-047ac361fbd7@Julf.com>

ICANN is kicking off the FY25 Planning Cycle, beginning with the 
strategic outlook trend program. Community members can participate in 
trend identification sessions through their Supporting Organization (SO) 
or Advisory Committee (AC). ICANN will collaborate with SO and AC chairs 
and support teams to schedule sessions in March and April 2023.

This program is a joint effort of ICANN org, community, and Board to 
identify and track trends that are related to ICANN. This ensures that 
these opportunities and challenges are incorporated into current and 
future planning. Every year, new trends or shifts in existing trends 
impacting the operating plans (five-year or annual) and/or budget are 
factored into the annual iteration of those plans as appropriate. 
Significant shifts could also result in adjustments to the strategic plan.

Once complete, ICANN org will conduct a trend analysis and impact 
assessment. All strategic outlook sessions will be conducted virtually, 
and community members are encouraged to join this important discussion. 
We look forward to your participation in this dialogue about ICANN 
planning and strategy.

Additionally, we will begin the FY25 Planning Prioritization Process in 
April. The Planning Prioritization Group will comprise members from the 
ICANN stakeholder groups as listed below. The stakeholder group 
leadership will be asked to nominate one primary member and one 
secondary member to participate in the prioritization process. 
Nominations will be due by the end of March by emailing 
planning at icann.org, with a copy to the Policy Strategic Management team 
(policy-strat-mgt at icann.org).

	Julf


From kathy at dnrc.tech  Fri Mar  3 16:31:22 2023
From: kathy at dnrc.tech (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2023 09:31:22 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN76 Board Questions/Topics- focusing on our
 Applicant Support Question
In-Reply-To: <CAFjNNRrjtcU_Occ7t7F_8m0fgAsLWQU-B9bcExSVgwGx5PB0pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f07c7ba6-56e9-121e-755c-60adcc61367d@gmail.com>
 <9EAA7C68-0ADC-4916-B6A1-4DA002B73175@digitaldiscretion.ca>
 <CAFjNNRrjtcU_Occ7t7F_8m0fgAsLWQU-B9bcExSVgwGx5PB0pg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c5535eaf-7039-8dda-c195-22ba0c3d4c0b@dnrc.tech>

Hi John,

Tx for your revisions to Stephanie's email. /Did you see my email of 3/1 
at 11:17am (Eastern)?? /

We are deeply invested in Applicant Support, but frankly, we 
(NCSG/NCUC/NPOC) have provided precious little guidance on the topic in 
the last 10 years, including missing some recent input deadlines. 
Forgive me, but we are long on complaints, and short on solutions, and 
in a technical policy group, /we need to find the solutions./

I offered some of them in the email I reference above. I believe our 
questions have already been shared,and thus, Applicant Support is on the 
agenda for our Board meeting. We are free to revise the question/segment 
a bit. /What do you think of the two timeframes for promotion I offer? /

I see and hear your deep concern - but again, what solutions or options 
do we want to recommend?? We all want balance due process, 
inclusiveness, and diversity, but the Board will want to know how YOU 
and NCSG/NCUC/NPOC recommend they do it.? Again, per my email: What is 
the timeframe for publicity of this program? /I give some very specific 
and constructive ideas we can bring forward. What do you think?? What 
specific and constructive guidance would you give the Board based on the 
groups you know are likely to need and use the Applicant Support 
Program. I've been checking on my side, and I assume you have too. That 
insight and information is timely, even critical right now. /

Further, were you on the SubPro ODP meeting Wed??? Staff reports that 
the Board approved the reduction of application fees for Applicant 
Support groups, but _rejected _the recommendation of SubPro that ICANN 
provide additional forms of support to applicants, including legal and 
technical counseling and advice for the application. The Board 
apparently saw potential conflicts of interest. /How can we in 
NCSG/NCUC/NPOC preserve this vital recommendation and find a way that 
ICANN can help provide these services without ICANN being legally 
responsible?/

/I've taken this email off the main list and copied it to NCSG Policy 
Comment and NCUC Chair Benjamin who is very involved in these issues./

/Let's be constructive, even positive, in this critically important 
moment - what constructive ideas, comments, tangible ways to move 
forward can we provide?? I promise you that the Board is listening.? 
Will you be in Cancun to deliver this question in person?
/

/Best, Kathy/

On 3/1/2023 9:51 AM, John Gbadamosi wrote:
> I have rephrased question?2, let us see if this is better:
> NCSG is deeply invested in the topic of Applicant Support. The SubPro 
> ODA recommended that the applicant support program begin 18 months 
> before the expected opening of the application submission period and 
> presented two implementation options, with option 2 requiring only 18 
> months. However, due to the ongoing work of the GGP, it appears 
> impractical to incorporate the Applicant Support Program in time for 
> the next round within the aggressive timeline of option 2. While we 
> appreciate the organization's efforts to reduce risks and increase 
> efficiency through the development of option 2, it would be pointless 
> to proceed with the next round without a genuinely effective applicant 
> support program. The Board has expressed interest in finding new ways 
> to work on issues and increase efficiency, but we are concerned that 
> this desire to move quickly could compromise the inclusive and diverse 
> multistakeholder model that defines ICANN. Option 2 could serve as an 
> example of this. We would like to know how the Board intends to 
> balance its desire to be agile with the need to preserve due process, 
> inclusiveness, and diversity in its deliberations, including those 
> related to SubPro ODA.
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> 
> 	Virus-free.www.avast.com 
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> 
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 3:18?PM Digital 
> <stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> wrote:
>
>     will work on it right now
>     Steph
>     31
>     Sent from my iPhone
>
>     > On Mar 1, 2023, at 08:50, Johan Helsingius
>     <julf.helsingius at gmail.com> wrote:
>     >
>     > ?[You don't often get email from julf.helsingius at gmail.com.
>     Learn why this is important at
>     https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>     >
>     > Great questions! Thanks!
>     >
>     > Can anyone help streamline question 2? I would make an attempt,
>     > but I am in transit right now...
>     >
>     >? ? ? ?Julf
>     >
>     >
>     >> On 01/03/2023 11:12, ??? Manju Chen wrote:
>     >> My question:
>     >>
>     >> 1.
>     >> In her blog recapping the January workshop, Tripti suggested
>     that the
>     >> Board 'anticipates making incremental decisions leading up to
>     the final
>     >> decision on opening a new application window for new gTLDs'.
>     Can you
>     >> elaborate on what 'incremental decisions' are to be expected?
>     >>
>     >> 2.
>     >> Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of NCSG. In the
>     SubPro
>     >> ODA, it was suggested that the applicant support program starts 18
>     >> months prior to the anticipated application submission period
>     opening.
>     >> The ODA also offered 2 options for implementing SubPro outputs,
>     where
>     >> option 2 only requires 18 months of implementation. While the GGP
>     >> continues its work, it seems impossible to incorporate the
>     Applicant
>     >> Support Program in time for the next round in the aggressive
>     timeline of
>     >> Option 2. While we appreciate the org's effort in mitigating
>     risks and
>     >> enhancing efficiency by developing option 2, the next round
>     would be
>     >> meaningless if we open it without a meaningful and genuinely
>     effective
>     >> applicant support program. We have received questions from the
>     Board
>     >> about how to be agile and come up with new ways of working on
>     issues to
>     >> increase efficiency,. However, we fear this desire to move things
>     >> forward can damage the inclusive, diverse multistakeholder
>     model that
>     >> defines ICANN. And Option 2 could be the exact example. How
>     does the
>     >> Board plan to balance the desire to be agile without
>     compromising the
>     >> due process, inclusiveness, and diversity of the
>     multistakeholder model
>     >> in its deliberations, including SubPro ODA?
>     >>
>     >> The second question is a bit wordy and I'm afraid not as clear.
>     >> Appreciate if anyone would help editing/rephrasing to make it
>     clearer!
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> Best,
>     >> Manju
>     >>
>     >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:59?PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com
>     >> <mailto:julf at julf.com>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >>? ? Just as a reminder, here are the questions from our last
>     >>? ? session with the board:
>     >>
>     >>? ? PDPs Effectiveness and Volunteer fatigue
>     >>
>     >>? ? ? ? ? NCSG would like to discuss Board Approval,
>     implementation by
>     >>? ? ICANN
>     >>? ? org and delays of several PDPs - something we have already
>     discussed
>     >>? ? with you in previous occasions. If we look at processes such
>     as the
>     >>? ? EPDP
>     >>? ? related ones I think we can find a good example due
>     >>
>     >>? ? ? ? ? to the fact that even despite the fact that the board
>     didn't yet
>     >>? ? approve phase 2 recommendation, which were submitted in
>     2020, there is
>     >>? ? talk about the design paper of SSAD light. And in the past
>     years, I
>     >>? ? guess we started gathering more examples of where the
>     development
>     >>? ? process drags on for far too long and the implementation
>     becomes the
>     >>? ? place de facto to redo policy recommendations. So NCSG would
>     like to
>     >>? ? request the board for comments about the current speed or
>     even how do
>     >>? ? you plan to work together with GNSO and its groups on possible
>     >>? ? improvements to the PDPs timeline and so on.
>     >>
>     >>? ? ? ? ? ?What efforts are channeled to keep the people in the
>     community
>     >>? ? from volunteer fatigue?
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>? ? Whois Disclosure System
>     >>
>     >>? ? ? ? ? The recently published Whois Disclosure System design
>     paper
>     >>? ? mentioned a risk that the system might not provide
>     actionable data for
>     >>? ? use to answer questions raised by the SSAD ODA and this
>     makes us a
>     >>? ? little concerned about the EPDP recommendations. The
>     direction this
>     >>? ? work
>     >>? ? is going seems to point towards the intention to throw away
>     the EPDP
>     >>? ? recommendations related to SSAD. I'd like to know what the
>     board thinks
>     >>? ? about this concern.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>? ? ICANN Leadership positions
>     >>
>     >>? ? ? ? ? What is the Board?s take on the phenomenon of ICANN
>     recycling
>     >>? ? veterans for leadership positions. Does the Board think it?s
>     beneficial
>     >>? ? for the community to have the usual suspects rotating between
>     >>? ? leadership
>     >>? ? roles of different stakeholder groups?? How do we fix this
>     if we agree
>     >>? ? this is a problem? How does the Board imagine its role in
>     assisting the
>     >>? ? community to recruit more new blood?
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>? ? NomCom
>     >>
>     >>? ? ? ? ? NCSG has been talking for a long time about the lack
>     of proper
>     >>? ? representation at the NomCom, the current state of things is
>     that this
>     >>? ? part of the community only holds one seat at the group -
>     currently held
>     >>? ? by NCUC - and we trust this configuration is not really
>     representative
>     >>? ? of the diversity of stakeholders within GNSO or even
>     proportional if we
>     >>? ? consider that other SGs hold more than just one seat.
>     Therefore we have
>     >>? ? a very simple question: is there a possibility of
>     rebalancing the
>     >>? ? NomCom?
>     >>
>     >>? ? ? ? ? ? ?Julf
>     >>? ? _______________________________________________
>     >>? ? NCSG-PC mailing list
>     >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     >>? ? <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
>
>
>
> -- 
> John Gbadamosi
> Programme Officer, Digital Rights
> Media Rights Agenda
> Internet of Rights (IoR) Fellow
> Article 19, UK
> +2348099817296
> john at mediarightsagenda.org
> @Samjohn70

-- 
Kathy Kleiman
President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230303/a3f70f65/attachment.htm>

From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Fri Mar  3 22:43:20 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2023 07:43:20 +1100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN FY25 Planning Prioritization Process - NCSG
 representative needed
In-Reply-To: <da90669e-7a05-1a0b-55b3-047ac361fbd7@Julf.com>
References: <da90669e-7a05-1a0b-55b3-047ac361fbd7@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeWs1rwEcG+Fiehq=1Ugw+LHDRsUaH2Cpd7=rb2LLOpF_A@mail.gmail.com>

I nominate Bruna for this, if she has time.

Warmly,
Tomslin


On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 23:37, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:

> ICANN is kicking off the FY25 Planning Cycle, beginning with the
> strategic outlook trend program. Community members can participate in
> trend identification sessions through their Supporting Organization (SO)
> or Advisory Committee (AC). ICANN will collaborate with SO and AC chairs
> and support teams to schedule sessions in March and April 2023.
>
> This program is a joint effort of ICANN org, community, and Board to
> identify and track trends that are related to ICANN. This ensures that
> these opportunities and challenges are incorporated into current and
> future planning. Every year, new trends or shifts in existing trends
> impacting the operating plans (five-year or annual) and/or budget are
> factored into the annual iteration of those plans as appropriate.
> Significant shifts could also result in adjustments to the strategic plan.
>
> Once complete, ICANN org will conduct a trend analysis and impact
> assessment. All strategic outlook sessions will be conducted virtually,
> and community members are encouraged to join this important discussion.
> We look forward to your participation in this dialogue about ICANN
> planning and strategy.
>
> Additionally, we will begin the FY25 Planning Prioritization Process in
> April. The Planning Prioritization Group will comprise members from the
> ICANN stakeholder groups as listed below. The stakeholder group
> leadership will be asked to nominate one primary member and one
> secondary member to participate in the prioritization process.
> Nominations will be due by the end of March by emailing
> planning at icann.org, with a copy to the Policy Strategic Management team
> (policy-strat-mgt at icann.org).
>
>         Julf
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230304/a7230be0/attachment.htm>

From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Sun Mar  5 22:09:32 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 07:09:32 +1100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for Volunteers - FY25 Planning Prioritization Group
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeW+6gRgenvg9es4aVuBy3iHq8KvCaJ0q-6oZA13RboThQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

ICANN Org is about to begin the FY25  Planning Prioritization Process. This
process is often carried out by a Planning Prioritization Group which
comprises members from ICANN stakeholder groups. In that regard, we are
being asked to nominate one primary member and one
secondary member to participate in the prioritization process.

The NCSG is seeking two volunteers (a primary and secondary member) with
knowledge of Board-approved implementation work such as PDP
recommendations, Specific Review recommendations and knowledge of finance.

Please submit your expression of interest no later than *18th March 2023*,
indicating how you meet these requirements.

Warmly,
Tomslin
@LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230306/e3cbcef3/attachment.htm>

From julf at Julf.com  Sun Mar  5 22:29:50 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2023 21:29:50 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] The question from the board for the Board/NCSG session
Message-ID: <1789cbc9-2da0-b9d9-6cba-717db29b4ef0@Julf.com>

We still need to come up with a response to the question from the board: 
?The ICANN Board would like to explore how to combine the efficiencies 
of an agile approach to problem solving, like the Council?s small teams, 
with the need for accountability and transparency, to make progress on 
policy conversations. When would such an approach be most appropriate 
and how can we ensure that it does not circumvent required steps in a 
policy development process? ?.

	Julf


From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Mon Mar  6 00:31:05 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 09:31:05 +1100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for Volunteers - FY25 Planning Prioritization
 Group
In-Reply-To: <CAM8DdeW+6gRgenvg9es4aVuBy3iHq8KvCaJ0q-6oZA13RboThQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM8DdeW+6gRgenvg9es4aVuBy3iHq8KvCaJ0q-6oZA13RboThQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeUaNeem5NYLEPZyST6OOd2ZNysXKMMKsb1HQNXypMvYxw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

I forgot to add that you should please email your EOIs to me at
mesumbeslin at gmail.com and copy the NCSG chair at julf.helsingius at gmail.com
and our staff support Andrea at andrea.glandon at icann.org  for privacy
reasons.

Warmly,
Tomslin



On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 at 07:09, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> ICANN Org is about to begin the FY25  Planning Prioritization Process.
> This process is often carried out by a Planning Prioritization Group which
> comprises members from ICANN stakeholder groups. In that regard, we are
> being asked to nominate one primary member and one
> secondary member to participate in the prioritization process.
>
> The NCSG is seeking two volunteers (a primary and secondary member) with
> knowledge of Board-approved implementation work such as PDP
> recommendations, Specific Review recommendations and knowledge of finance.
>
> Please submit your expression of interest no later than *18th March 2023*,
> indicating how you meet these requirements.
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
> @LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230306/b057efb0/attachment.htm>

From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Mon Mar  6 00:48:01 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 09:48:01 +1100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Urgent] Call for ICANN Board Seat 14 Nominations
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeUatZbqP-dFbvoLh=EmebH=cPU-yuKNU2eW=BD8Y8Tdqw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear NCSG,

As you might be aware, In accordance with the ICANN bylaws, the GNSO shall
make selections to fill Seats 13 and 14
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#X-3.8> on the
ICANN Board. Each of the two voting Houses of the GNSO, shall make a
selection to fill one of two ICANN Board seats. The Non-Contracted Party
House selects a representative to fill Seat 14. At the bottom of this
email, I have pasted the process spelled out in the GNSO Operating
Procedures
<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-7-ncph-election-procedures-seat-14-24oct19-en.pdf>
.

The Policy Committee is calling for nominations from members to nominate
someone from NCSG or outside of NCSG for the board position (The candidate
doesn't have to be an NCSG member) no later than *Friday 10th March 2023*.
This is the first time we are making such a call so bear with us on the
short timelines.

The candidate, while sharing our values should have a more balanced
approach. That is balancing between both NCSG and CSG views on issues where
possible. Candidates will be considered based on their track record of work
at GNSO or other Internet Governance environments (leadership roles at IETF
for example), and evidence of their ability to take a balanced approach on
issues.

Please send your nominations to me at mesumbeslin at gmail.com and copy the
NCSG chair at julf.helsingius at gmail.com and our staff support Andrea at
andrea.glandon at icann.org

Warmly,
Tomslin


*Proposal Agreed to by CSG and NCSG on 15 March 2018 at ICANN 61*

1.      *Have Preliminary Conversations*

a. NCSG to ask members to identify possible candidates.

b. CSG to ask its constituencies to identify possible candidates.

c. NomCom Appointee (NCA) will be included in the process as an advisor.

d. Set preliminary target dates for the process.

e. Consider that the incumbent can be selected again and ask if willing to
run again.

2.      *Determine Willingness and Availability of Any Candidates*

a. Ask candidates to provide a Statement of Interest (SOI).

b. The candidates should undergo a background check for criminal records
and other due

diligence checks through a process provided by ICANN, which is used by
NomCom.

*3.      **Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and Commercial
Stakeholder Group (CSG) to Consult on Available Candidates*

*4.      *

a. Interviews can take place and the NCA can be invited to join the
interviews. There can be joint NCPH interviews.

b. NCSG and CSG leaders must agree on one consensus candidate to run for
election. There should be a timeline of when they should reach consensus on
the candidate. If they cannot, they must identify more candidates to
interview and come to a consensus.



5.      *Election*

a. The CSG leaders and the NCSG leaders shall vote on the candidate running
against None of The Above (NOTA). The CSG and NCSG shall have one vote
each, which will be determined by each of their internal procedures.

b. The threshold for a successful candidate to win the election is 2 votes.

c. If NOTA receives 1 or more votes, then the call for nomination should be
reopened, start from step 1.

d. If one or more alternate candidates are identified, restart the process
at step 2.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230306/8d2fa946/attachment.htm>

From julf at Julf.com  Mon Mar  6 16:28:50 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 15:28:50 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
Message-ID: <09bdd2c5-0ec0-d354-0b9c-4cb4dca6ec95@Julf.com>

So here are the questions in the form we submitted them. No way they
will have time for 10 answers, but...

Anyway, who will present which question(s)?

	Julf


1.     The GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI) Task Force has recommended 
that participants must disclose the identities of their clients or the 
employers they represent as a condition to participating in a working 
group. We believe this should be done without exception to enhance 
transparency and prevent group take-overs. What are the board's thoughts 
on this?

2.    Has the Board reviewed the effectiveness of the implementation of 
ICANN's mandate during the COVID lockdown?  How much money was saved by 
not traveling, and what were the impacts on policy effectiveness, 
outreach and inclusion?  Should ICANN continue to travel to the extent 
that it does, given concern for our carbon footprint?  What do we gain, 
and what do we lose with this attempt at global outreach and are there 
better ways to meet with different regional populations and markets?

3.    From NPOC: When will NPOC finally get its seat at NomCom? Could 
the rebalancing recommendation be taken further on how exactly the 
rebalancing could happen? If necessary, outsource another review team to 
figure it out, although we'd like to point out that CSG has one too many 
and NCSG one less than they should have. Since the community isn't able 
to reach consensus to abide by the recommendation that we got six years 
ago, the board should carry it through.

4.    In her blog recapping the January workshop, Tripti suggested that 
the Board anticipates making incremental decisions leading up to the 
final decision on opening a new application window for new gTLDs'. Can 
you elaborate on what 'incremental decisions' are to be expected?

5.    Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of NCSG. The SubPro 
ODA suggested that the applicant support program start 18 months prior 
to the anticipated opening of the application submission period. The ODA 
also offered 2 options for implementing SubPro outputs, where option 2 
would only require 18 months of implementation. While the GGP continues 
its work, it seems impossible to incorporate the Applicant Support 
Program in time for the next round in the aggressive timeline of Option 
2. We appreciate the org's effort in mitigating risks and enhancing 
efficiency by developing option 2, but the NCSG feels strongly that the 
next round will be unfair if we open it without a meaningful and 
genuinely effective applicant support program.

6.    We have received questions from the Board about how to be agile 
and come up with new ways of working on issues to increase efficiency. 
However, we fear this desire to move things forward can damage the 
inclusive, diverse multistakeholder model that defines ICANN. Option 2 
is a great example of this zeal for "agility" as opposed to fundamental 
fairness and concern for small organizations in this competitive 
environment. How does the Board plan to balance the desire to be agile 
without compromising the due process, inclusiveness, and diversity of 
the multistakeholder model in its deliberations, particularly with 
respect to the SubPro ODA?

7.    What is the process for finding a new CEO for ICANN and at what 
stage are we with that?

8.    What is ICANN doing to become carbon neutral and thus sustainable? 
Why isn't traveling to ICANN meetings by land (when possible) the 
preferred method of traveling? Especially in cases, where traveling by 
land would actually be the faster and more convenient option?

9.    What is ICANN doing to better appreciate the numerous amount of 
time that volunteers contribute to ICANN?


10.    How will ICANN align with the Global  Digital Compact in relation 
to Summit of the Future in 2024




From caseyadeleye at gmail.com  Mon Mar  6 08:56:48 2023
From: caseyadeleye at gmail.com (Casey Adeleye)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 07:56:48 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-FC] ICANN FY25 Planning Prioritization Process
 - NCSG representative needed
In-Reply-To: <da90669e-7a05-1a0b-55b3-047ac361fbd7@Julf.com>
References: <da90669e-7a05-1a0b-55b3-047ac361fbd7@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <CAD2uQOUbL8VMH_akBJaBY7tp=xASBAkKy8s1r3BX9Veov0To0Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi and good morning,

Thanks for the information.

Regards,
Peter

On Fri, Mar 3, 2023, 13:37 Johan Helsingius via NCSG-FC <
ncsg-fc at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

> ICANN is kicking off the FY25 Planning Cycle, beginning with the
> strategic outlook trend program. Community members can participate in
> trend identification sessions through their Supporting Organization (SO)
> or Advisory Committee (AC). ICANN will collaborate with SO and AC chairs
> and support teams to schedule sessions in March and April 2023.
>
> This program is a joint effort of ICANN org, community, and Board to
> identify and track trends that are related to ICANN. This ensures that
> these opportunities and challenges are incorporated into current and
> future planning. Every year, new trends or shifts in existing trends
> impacting the operating plans (five-year or annual) and/or budget are
> factored into the annual iteration of those plans as appropriate.
> Significant shifts could also result in adjustments to the strategic plan.
>
> Once complete, ICANN org will conduct a trend analysis and impact
> assessment. All strategic outlook sessions will be conducted virtually,
> and community members are encouraged to join this important discussion.
> We look forward to your participation in this dialogue about ICANN
> planning and strategy.
>
> Additionally, we will begin the FY25 Planning Prioritization Process in
> April. The Planning Prioritization Group will comprise members from the
> ICANN stakeholder groups as listed below. The stakeholder group
> leadership will be asked to nominate one primary member and one
> secondary member to participate in the prioritization process.
> Nominations will be due by the end of March by emailing
> planning at icann.org, with a copy to the Policy Strategic Management team
> (policy-strat-mgt at icann.org).
>
>         Julf
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-FC mailing list
> NCSG-FC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-fc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230306/cf143e52/attachment.htm>

From Kathy at KathyKleiman.com  Mon Mar  6 16:30:19 2023
From: Kathy at KathyKleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 09:30:19 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] The question from the board for the Board/NCSG session
In-Reply-To: <1789cbc9-2da0-b9d9-6cba-717db29b4ef0@Julf.com>
References: <1789cbc9-2da0-b9d9-6cba-717db29b4ef0@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <a7c92371-a800-9c64-28df-4727bc4fa699@KathyKleiman.com>

Hi Julf,

This is an important question that bears discussion.? I think there are 
differing thoughts even within our NCSG group.? Do we have to respond in 
writing now?? Can we tell the ICANN Board that we are discussing F2F and 
will share our discussion with them. This is not a quick question or an 
easy one.

Question:? Isn't the NCSG meeting /before we meet with the ICANN Board? 
/Can we put a slot in the agenda to talk about this matter?

Best and tx,

Kathy

On 3/5/2023 3:29 PM, Johan Helsingius wrote:
> We still need to come up with a response to the question from the 
> board: ?The ICANN Board would like to explore how to combine the 
> efficiencies of an agile approach to problem solving, like the 
> Council?s small teams, with the need for accountability and 
> transparency, to make progress on policy conversations. When would 
> such an approach be most appropriate and how can we ensure that it 
> does not circumvent required steps in a policy development process? ?.
>
> ????Julf
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230306/81c673aa/attachment.htm>

From Kathy at KathyKleiman.com  Mon Mar  6 16:31:24 2023
From: Kathy at KathyKleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 09:31:24 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <09bdd2c5-0ec0-d354-0b9c-4cb4dca6ec95@Julf.com>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
 <09bdd2c5-0ec0-d354-0b9c-4cb4dca6ec95@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <20ff300f-181c-094e-2f28-c0acc787bb5a@KathyKleiman.com>

I think we have an Applicant Support question too... and the opportunity 
to introduce (or identify) the students in NCSG who have been studying 
ICANN policy in the pilot project focused on Applicant Support.

On 3/6/2023 9:28 AM, Johan Helsingius wrote:
> So here are the questions in the form we submitted them. No way they
> will have time for 10 answers, but...
>
> Anyway, who will present which question(s)?
>
> ????Julf
>
>
> 1.???? The GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI) Task Force has recommended 
> that participants must disclose the identities of their clients or the 
> employers they represent as a condition to participating in a working 
> group. We believe this should be done without exception to enhance 
> transparency and prevent group take-overs. What are the board's 
> thoughts on this?
>
> 2.??? Has the Board reviewed the effectiveness of the implementation 
> of ICANN's mandate during the COVID lockdown?? How much money was 
> saved by not traveling, and what were the impacts on policy 
> effectiveness, outreach and inclusion?? Should ICANN continue to 
> travel to the extent that it does, given concern for our carbon 
> footprint?? What do we gain, and what do we lose with this attempt at 
> global outreach and are there better ways to meet with different 
> regional populations and markets?
>
> 3.??? From NPOC: When will NPOC finally get its seat at NomCom? Could 
> the rebalancing recommendation be taken further on how exactly the 
> rebalancing could happen? If necessary, outsource another review team 
> to figure it out, although we'd like to point out that CSG has one too 
> many and NCSG one less than they should have. Since the community 
> isn't able to reach consensus to abide by the recommendation that we 
> got six years ago, the board should carry it through.
>
> 4.??? In her blog recapping the January workshop, Tripti suggested 
> that the Board anticipates making incremental decisions leading up to 
> the final decision on opening a new application window for new gTLDs'. 
> Can you elaborate on what 'incremental decisions' are to be expected?
>
> 5.??? Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of NCSG. The 
> SubPro ODA suggested that the applicant support program start 18 
> months prior to the anticipated opening of the application submission 
> period. The ODA also offered 2 options for implementing SubPro 
> outputs, where option 2 would only require 18 months of 
> implementation. While the GGP continues its work, it seems impossible 
> to incorporate the Applicant Support Program in time for the next 
> round in the aggressive timeline of Option 2. We appreciate the org's 
> effort in mitigating risks and enhancing efficiency by developing 
> option 2, but the NCSG feels strongly that the next round will be 
> unfair if we open it without a meaningful and genuinely effective 
> applicant support program.
>
> 6.??? We have received questions from the Board about how to be agile 
> and come up with new ways of working on issues to increase efficiency. 
> However, we fear this desire to move things forward can damage the 
> inclusive, diverse multistakeholder model that defines ICANN. Option 2 
> is a great example of this zeal for "agility" as opposed to 
> fundamental fairness and concern for small organizations in this 
> competitive environment. How does the Board plan to balance the desire 
> to be agile without compromising the due process, inclusiveness, and 
> diversity of the multistakeholder model in its deliberations, 
> particularly with respect to the SubPro ODA?
>
> 7.??? What is the process for finding a new CEO for ICANN and at what 
> stage are we with that?
>
> 8.??? What is ICANN doing to become carbon neutral and thus 
> sustainable? Why isn't traveling to ICANN meetings by land (when 
> possible) the preferred method of traveling? Especially in cases, 
> where traveling by land would actually be the faster and more 
> convenient option?
>
> 9.??? What is ICANN doing to better appreciate the numerous amount of 
> time that volunteers contribute to ICANN?
>
>
> 10.??? How will ICANN align with the Global? Digital Compact in 
> relation to Summit of the Future in 2024
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc


From julf at Julf.com  Mon Mar  6 17:13:25 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 16:13:25 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <20ff300f-181c-094e-2f28-c0acc787bb5a@KathyKleiman.com>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
 <09bdd2c5-0ec0-d354-0b9c-4cb4dca6ec95@Julf.com>
 <20ff300f-181c-094e-2f28-c0acc787bb5a@KathyKleiman.com>
Message-ID: <29de1c31-ff30-5b93-cb2a-4b5f611b6b7c@Julf.com>

Question 5? Yes, it is a good opportunity to highlight the
pilot project. Are you up to handling Q5 (if we get to it)?

	Julf


On 06/03/2023 15:31, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> I think we have an Applicant Support question too... and the opportunity 
> to introduce (or identify) the students in NCSG who have been studying 
> ICANN policy in the pilot project focused on Applicant Support.
> 
> On 3/6/2023 9:28 AM, Johan Helsingius wrote:
>> So here are the questions in the form we submitted them. No way they
>> will have time for 10 answers, but...
>>
>> Anyway, who will present which question(s)?
>>
>> ????Julf
>>
>>
>> 1.???? The GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI) Task Force has recommended 
>> that participants must disclose the identities of their clients or the 
>> employers they represent as a condition to participating in a working 
>> group. We believe this should be done without exception to enhance 
>> transparency and prevent group take-overs. What are the board's 
>> thoughts on this?
>>
>> 2.??? Has the Board reviewed the effectiveness of the implementation 
>> of ICANN's mandate during the COVID lockdown?? How much money was 
>> saved by not traveling, and what were the impacts on policy 
>> effectiveness, outreach and inclusion?? Should ICANN continue to 
>> travel to the extent that it does, given concern for our carbon 
>> footprint?? What do we gain, and what do we lose with this attempt at 
>> global outreach and are there better ways to meet with different 
>> regional populations and markets?
>>
>> 3.??? From NPOC: When will NPOC finally get its seat at NomCom? Could 
>> the rebalancing recommendation be taken further on how exactly the 
>> rebalancing could happen? If necessary, outsource another review team 
>> to figure it out, although we'd like to point out that CSG has one too 
>> many and NCSG one less than they should have. Since the community 
>> isn't able to reach consensus to abide by the recommendation that we 
>> got six years ago, the board should carry it through.
>>
>> 4.??? In her blog recapping the January workshop, Tripti suggested 
>> that the Board anticipates making incremental decisions leading up to 
>> the final decision on opening a new application window for new gTLDs'. 
>> Can you elaborate on what 'incremental decisions' are to be expected?
>>
>> 5.??? Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of NCSG. The 
>> SubPro ODA suggested that the applicant support program start 18 
>> months prior to the anticipated opening of the application submission 
>> period. The ODA also offered 2 options for implementing SubPro 
>> outputs, where option 2 would only require 18 months of 
>> implementation. While the GGP continues its work, it seems impossible 
>> to incorporate the Applicant Support Program in time for the next 
>> round in the aggressive timeline of Option 2. We appreciate the org's 
>> effort in mitigating risks and enhancing efficiency by developing 
>> option 2, but the NCSG feels strongly that the next round will be 
>> unfair if we open it without a meaningful and genuinely effective 
>> applicant support program.
>>
>> 6.??? We have received questions from the Board about how to be agile 
>> and come up with new ways of working on issues to increase efficiency. 
>> However, we fear this desire to move things forward can damage the 
>> inclusive, diverse multistakeholder model that defines ICANN. Option 2 
>> is a great example of this zeal for "agility" as opposed to 
>> fundamental fairness and concern for small organizations in this 
>> competitive environment. How does the Board plan to balance the desire 
>> to be agile without compromising the due process, inclusiveness, and 
>> diversity of the multistakeholder model in its deliberations, 
>> particularly with respect to the SubPro ODA?
>>
>> 7.??? What is the process for finding a new CEO for ICANN and at what 
>> stage are we with that?
>>
>> 8.??? What is ICANN doing to become carbon neutral and thus 
>> sustainable? Why isn't traveling to ICANN meetings by land (when 
>> possible) the preferred method of traveling? Especially in cases, 
>> where traveling by land would actually be the faster and more 
>> convenient option?
>>
>> 9.??? What is ICANN doing to better appreciate the numerous amount of 
>> time that volunteers contribute to ICANN?
>>
>>
>> 10.??? How will ICANN align with the Global? Digital Compact in 
>> relation to Summit of the Future in 2024
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc


From Kathy at KathyKleiman.com  Mon Mar  6 17:19:14 2023
From: Kathy at KathyKleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 10:19:14 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <29de1c31-ff30-5b93-cb2a-4b5f611b6b7c@Julf.com>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
 <09bdd2c5-0ec0-d354-0b9c-4cb4dca6ec95@Julf.com>
 <20ff300f-181c-094e-2f28-c0acc787bb5a@KathyKleiman.com>
 <29de1c31-ff30-5b93-cb2a-4b5f611b6b7c@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <9113ee47-e64d-c52f-bced-5b0b1feb4e7f@KathyKleiman.com>

Sure, I'm happy to handle it with John (who introduced it if he is in 
Cancun) and others.? I'll highlight some ways that ICANN can start the 
Applicant Support marketing soon - long before 18 months before the 
second round new gTLD applications are due.

Benjamin - we should discuss too!

Best, Kathy

On 3/6/2023 10:13 AM, Johan Helsingius wrote:
> Question 5? Yes, it is a good opportunity to highlight the
> pilot project. Are you up to handling Q5 (if we get to it)?
>
> ????Julf
>
>
> On 06/03/2023 15:31, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>> I think we have an Applicant Support question too... and the 
>> opportunity to introduce (or identify) the students in NCSG who have 
>> been studying ICANN policy in the pilot project focused on Applicant 
>> Support.
>>
>> On 3/6/2023 9:28 AM, Johan Helsingius wrote:
>>> So here are the questions in the form we submitted them. No way they
>>> will have time for 10 answers, but...
>>>
>>> Anyway, who will present which question(s)?
>>>
>>> ????Julf
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.???? The GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI) Task Force has 
>>> recommended that participants must disclose the identities of their 
>>> clients or the employers they represent as a condition to 
>>> participating in a working group. We believe this should be done 
>>> without exception to enhance transparency and prevent group 
>>> take-overs. What are the board's thoughts on this?
>>>
>>> 2.??? Has the Board reviewed the effectiveness of the implementation 
>>> of ICANN's mandate during the COVID lockdown? How much money was 
>>> saved by not traveling, and what were the impacts on policy 
>>> effectiveness, outreach and inclusion? Should ICANN continue to 
>>> travel to the extent that it does, given concern for our carbon 
>>> footprint?? What do we gain, and what do we lose with this attempt 
>>> at global outreach and are there better ways to meet with different 
>>> regional populations and markets?
>>>
>>> 3.??? From NPOC: When will NPOC finally get its seat at NomCom? 
>>> Could the rebalancing recommendation be taken further on how exactly 
>>> the rebalancing could happen? If necessary, outsource another review 
>>> team to figure it out, although we'd like to point out that CSG has 
>>> one too many and NCSG one less than they should have. Since the 
>>> community isn't able to reach consensus to abide by the 
>>> recommendation that we got six years ago, the board should carry it 
>>> through.
>>>
>>> 4.??? In her blog recapping the January workshop, Tripti suggested 
>>> that the Board anticipates making incremental decisions leading up 
>>> to the final decision on opening a new application window for new 
>>> gTLDs'. Can you elaborate on what 'incremental decisions' are to be 
>>> expected?
>>>
>>> 5.??? Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of NCSG. The 
>>> SubPro ODA suggested that the applicant support program start 18 
>>> months prior to the anticipated opening of the application 
>>> submission period. The ODA also offered 2 options for implementing 
>>> SubPro outputs, where option 2 would only require 18 months of 
>>> implementation. While the GGP continues its work, it seems 
>>> impossible to incorporate the Applicant Support Program in time for 
>>> the next round in the aggressive timeline of Option 2. We appreciate 
>>> the org's effort in mitigating risks and enhancing efficiency by 
>>> developing option 2, but the NCSG feels strongly that the next round 
>>> will be unfair if we open it without a meaningful and genuinely 
>>> effective applicant support program.
>>>
>>> 6.??? We have received questions from the Board about how to be 
>>> agile and come up with new ways of working on issues to increase 
>>> efficiency. However, we fear this desire to move things forward can 
>>> damage the inclusive, diverse multistakeholder model that defines 
>>> ICANN. Option 2 is a great example of this zeal for "agility" as 
>>> opposed to fundamental fairness and concern for small organizations 
>>> in this competitive environment. How does the Board plan to balance 
>>> the desire to be agile without compromising the due process, 
>>> inclusiveness, and diversity of the multistakeholder model in its 
>>> deliberations, particularly with respect to the SubPro ODA?
>>>
>>> 7.??? What is the process for finding a new CEO for ICANN and at 
>>> what stage are we with that?
>>>
>>> 8.??? What is ICANN doing to become carbon neutral and thus 
>>> sustainable? Why isn't traveling to ICANN meetings by land (when 
>>> possible) the preferred method of traveling? Especially in cases, 
>>> where traveling by land would actually be the faster and more 
>>> convenient option?
>>>
>>> 9.??? What is ICANN doing to better appreciate the numerous amount 
>>> of time that volunteers contribute to ICANN?
>>>
>>>
>>> 10.??? How will ICANN align with the Global? Digital Compact in 
>>> relation to Summit of the Future in 2024
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc


From julf at Julf.com  Mon Mar  6 17:22:04 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 16:22:04 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <9113ee47-e64d-c52f-bced-5b0b1feb4e7f@KathyKleiman.com>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
 <09bdd2c5-0ec0-d354-0b9c-4cb4dca6ec95@Julf.com>
 <20ff300f-181c-094e-2f28-c0acc787bb5a@KathyKleiman.com>
 <29de1c31-ff30-5b93-cb2a-4b5f611b6b7c@Julf.com>
 <9113ee47-e64d-c52f-bced-5b0b1feb4e7f@KathyKleiman.com>
Message-ID: <173879bb-ab21-6df9-6c96-ce8aab3edee0@Julf.com>

Great! Thanks Kathy!

	Julf

On 06/03/2023 16:19, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Sure, I'm happy to handle it with John (who introduced it if he is in 
> Cancun) and others.? I'll highlight some ways that ICANN can start the 
> Applicant Support marketing soon - long before 18 months before the 
> second round new gTLD applications are due.
> 
> Benjamin - we should discuss too!
> 
> Best, Kathy
> 
> On 3/6/2023 10:13 AM, Johan Helsingius wrote:
>> Question 5? Yes, it is a good opportunity to highlight the
>> pilot project. Are you up to handling Q5 (if we get to it)?
>>
>> ????Julf
>>
>>
>> On 06/03/2023 15:31, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>> I think we have an Applicant Support question too... and the 
>>> opportunity to introduce (or identify) the students in NCSG who have 
>>> been studying ICANN policy in the pilot project focused on Applicant 
>>> Support.
>>>
>>> On 3/6/2023 9:28 AM, Johan Helsingius wrote:
>>>> So here are the questions in the form we submitted them. No way they
>>>> will have time for 10 answers, but...
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, who will present which question(s)?
>>>>
>>>> ????Julf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1.???? The GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI) Task Force has 
>>>> recommended that participants must disclose the identities of their 
>>>> clients or the employers they represent as a condition to 
>>>> participating in a working group. We believe this should be done 
>>>> without exception to enhance transparency and prevent group 
>>>> take-overs. What are the board's thoughts on this?
>>>>
>>>> 2.??? Has the Board reviewed the effectiveness of the implementation 
>>>> of ICANN's mandate during the COVID lockdown? How much money was 
>>>> saved by not traveling, and what were the impacts on policy 
>>>> effectiveness, outreach and inclusion? Should ICANN continue to 
>>>> travel to the extent that it does, given concern for our carbon 
>>>> footprint?? What do we gain, and what do we lose with this attempt 
>>>> at global outreach and are there better ways to meet with different 
>>>> regional populations and markets?
>>>>
>>>> 3.??? From NPOC: When will NPOC finally get its seat at NomCom? 
>>>> Could the rebalancing recommendation be taken further on how exactly 
>>>> the rebalancing could happen? If necessary, outsource another review 
>>>> team to figure it out, although we'd like to point out that CSG has 
>>>> one too many and NCSG one less than they should have. Since the 
>>>> community isn't able to reach consensus to abide by the 
>>>> recommendation that we got six years ago, the board should carry it 
>>>> through.
>>>>
>>>> 4.??? In her blog recapping the January workshop, Tripti suggested 
>>>> that the Board anticipates making incremental decisions leading up 
>>>> to the final decision on opening a new application window for new 
>>>> gTLDs'. Can you elaborate on what 'incremental decisions' are to be 
>>>> expected?
>>>>
>>>> 5.??? Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of NCSG. The 
>>>> SubPro ODA suggested that the applicant support program start 18 
>>>> months prior to the anticipated opening of the application 
>>>> submission period. The ODA also offered 2 options for implementing 
>>>> SubPro outputs, where option 2 would only require 18 months of 
>>>> implementation. While the GGP continues its work, it seems 
>>>> impossible to incorporate the Applicant Support Program in time for 
>>>> the next round in the aggressive timeline of Option 2. We appreciate 
>>>> the org's effort in mitigating risks and enhancing efficiency by 
>>>> developing option 2, but the NCSG feels strongly that the next round 
>>>> will be unfair if we open it without a meaningful and genuinely 
>>>> effective applicant support program.
>>>>
>>>> 6.??? We have received questions from the Board about how to be 
>>>> agile and come up with new ways of working on issues to increase 
>>>> efficiency. However, we fear this desire to move things forward can 
>>>> damage the inclusive, diverse multistakeholder model that defines 
>>>> ICANN. Option 2 is a great example of this zeal for "agility" as 
>>>> opposed to fundamental fairness and concern for small organizations 
>>>> in this competitive environment. How does the Board plan to balance 
>>>> the desire to be agile without compromising the due process, 
>>>> inclusiveness, and diversity of the multistakeholder model in its 
>>>> deliberations, particularly with respect to the SubPro ODA?
>>>>
>>>> 7.??? What is the process for finding a new CEO for ICANN and at 
>>>> what stage are we with that?
>>>>
>>>> 8.??? What is ICANN doing to become carbon neutral and thus 
>>>> sustainable? Why isn't traveling to ICANN meetings by land (when 
>>>> possible) the preferred method of traveling? Especially in cases, 
>>>> where traveling by land would actually be the faster and more 
>>>> convenient option?
>>>>
>>>> 9.??? What is ICANN doing to better appreciate the numerous amount 
>>>> of time that volunteers contribute to ICANN?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 10.??? How will ICANN align with the Global? Digital Compact in 
>>>> relation to Summit of the Future in 2024
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc


From julf at Julf.com  Mon Mar  6 17:29:57 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 16:29:57 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] The question from the board for the Board/NCSG session
In-Reply-To: <a7c92371-a800-9c64-28df-4727bc4fa699@KathyKleiman.com>
References: <1789cbc9-2da0-b9d9-6cba-717db29b4ef0@Julf.com>
 <a7c92371-a800-9c64-28df-4727bc4fa699@KathyKleiman.com>
Message-ID: <b89ca3b4-08ab-4bd5-92cd-81c21a9b6744@Julf.com>

Hi Kathy,

We don't have to respond in advance, so we have time to hash it out.

	Julf


On 06/03/2023 15:30, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Hi Julf,
> 
> This is an important question that bears discussion.? I think there are 
> differing thoughts even within our NCSG group.? Do we have to respond in 
> writing now?? Can we tell the ICANN Board that we are discussing F2F and 
> will share our discussion with them. This is not a quick question or an 
> easy one.
> 
> Question:? Isn't the NCSG meeting /before we meet with the ICANN Board? 
> /Can we put a slot in the agenda to talk about this matter?
> 
> Best and tx,
> 
> Kathy
> 
> On 3/5/2023 3:29 PM, Johan Helsingius wrote:
>> We still need to come up with a response to the question from the 
>> board: ?The ICANN Board would like to explore how to combine the 
>> efficiencies of an agile approach to problem solving, like the 
>> Council?s small teams, with the need for accountability and 
>> transparency, to make progress on policy conversations. When would 
>> such an approach be most appropriate and how can we ensure that it 
>> does not circumvent required steps in a policy development process? ?.
>>
>> ????Julf
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc


From andrea.glandon at icann.org  Tue Mar  7 16:03:17 2023
From: andrea.glandon at icann.org (Andrea Glandon)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 14:03:17 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Ext] Re: NCSG PC meeting in Cancun
In-Reply-To: <CAM8DdeVwx=czUWOAB1qF2ikqc9jJRA7XHMnMCgDHqJ73Q+ssLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM8DdeXGHqskSzsQFUjvNZK_0XrkpsDth4Yz5XVHLgJQ_C2mYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM8DdeVwx=czUWOAB1qF2ikqc9jJRA7XHMnMCgDHqJ73Q+ssLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EAE707C8-B266-4816-9AF3-4FD4B8C7A302@icann.org>

Hello all,

If you are presenting during the NCSG PC session in Cancun, please let me know if you will have slides and send them to me at least 24 hours prior to the session.

Thanks!
Kind Regards,
Andrea


From: Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at GMAIL.COM>
Date: Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 14:07
To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
Cc: Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: NCSG PC meeting in Cancun

Hi again,

Thought I should share the Google doc Andrea had created for drafting the PC meeting agenda
NCSG Policy: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bmYVSjk-Qpsw9W98beS7cx9kQ805KvaqMEt4SR_dYpE/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1bmYVSjk-Qpsw9W98beS7cx9kQ805KvaqMEt4SR_dYpE/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!_sz1qtzzXRpxzAFhXnxm4_wtYUnhNaRZ68mBkI_v73lOwAGdNTYzeb3GMP1IZqRrHpJDVWW12mlM-dfZyNRZiLBfvbwehA$> .

Please add/modify.

Warmly,
Tomslin


On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 16:51, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com<mailto:mesumbeslin at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,

I am developing an agenda for our meeting. Is there any topics you would like to see discussed?
Warmly,
Tomslin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230307/a80710e3/attachment.htm>

From julf at julf.com  Thu Mar  9 00:05:20 2023
From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 17:05:20 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Ext] Re: NCSG PC meeting in Cancun
In-Reply-To: <EAE707C8-B266-4816-9AF3-4FD4B8C7A302@icann.org>
References: <CAM8DdeXGHqskSzsQFUjvNZK_0XrkpsDth4Yz5XVHLgJQ_C2mYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM8DdeVwx=czUWOAB1qF2ikqc9jJRA7XHMnMCgDHqJ73Q+ssLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <EAE707C8-B266-4816-9AF3-4FD4B8C7A302@icann.org>
Message-ID: <a0e63323-0c5a-b671-459d-36273a19c291@julf.com>

No slides for me for the PC session.

	Julf

On 07/03/2023 15:03, Andrea Glandon wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> If you are presenting during the NCSG PC session in Cancun, please let 
> me know if you will have slides and send them to me at least 24 hours 
> prior to the session.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Andrea
> 
> *From: *Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at GMAIL.COM>
> *Date: *Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 14:07
> *To: *ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> *Cc: *Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>, Brenda Brewer 
> <brenda.brewer at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: NCSG PC meeting in Cancun
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> Thought I should share the Google doc Andrea had created for drafting 
> the PC meeting agenda
> 
> NCSG Policy: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bmYVSjk-Qpsw9W98beS7cx9kQ805KvaqMEt4SR_dYpE/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1bmYVSjk-Qpsw9W98beS7cx9kQ805KvaqMEt4SR_dYpE/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!_sz1qtzzXRpxzAFhXnxm4_wtYUnhNaRZ68mBkI_v73lOwAGdNTYzeb3GMP1IZqRrHpJDVWW12mlM-dfZyNRZiLBfvbwehA$> .
> 
> Please add/modify.
> 
> Warmly,
> 
> Tomslin
> 
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 16:51, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com 
> <mailto:mesumbeslin at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi all,
> 
>     I am developing an agenda for our meeting. Is there any topics you
>     would like to see discussed?
> 
>     Warmly,
>     Tomslin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc


From Kathy at KathyKleiman.com  Thu Mar  9 01:49:24 2023
From: Kathy at KathyKleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 18:49:24 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Ext] Re: NCSG PC meeting in Cancun
In-Reply-To: <a0e63323-0c5a-b671-459d-36273a19c291@julf.com>
References: <CAM8DdeXGHqskSzsQFUjvNZK_0XrkpsDth4Yz5XVHLgJQ_C2mYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM8DdeVwx=czUWOAB1qF2ikqc9jJRA7XHMnMCgDHqJ73Q+ssLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <EAE707C8-B266-4816-9AF3-4FD4B8C7A302@icann.org>
 <a0e63323-0c5a-b671-459d-36273a19c291@julf.com>
Message-ID: <92ad28c2-8613-fb38-048e-cd49b2b21570@KathyKleiman.com>

Yes!

Kathy

On 3/8/2023 5:05 PM, Johan Helsingius wrote:
> No slides for me for the PC session.
>
> ????Julf
>
> On 07/03/2023 15:03, Andrea Glandon wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> If you are presenting during the NCSG PC session in Cancun, please 
>> let me know if you will have slides and send them to me at least 24 
>> hours prior to the session.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Andrea
>>
>> *From: *Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at GMAIL.COM>
>> *Date: *Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 14:07
>> *To: *ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>> *Cc: *Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>, Brenda Brewer 
>> <brenda.brewer at icann.org>
>> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: NCSG PC meeting in Cancun
>>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> Thought I should share the Google doc Andrea had created for drafting 
>> the PC meeting agenda
>>
>> NCSG Policy: 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bmYVSjk-Qpsw9W98beS7cx9kQ805KvaqMEt4SR_dYpE/edit?usp=sharing 
>> [docs.google.com] 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1bmYVSjk-Qpsw9W98beS7cx9kQ805KvaqMEt4SR_dYpE/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!_sz1qtzzXRpxzAFhXnxm4_wtYUnhNaRZ68mBkI_v73lOwAGdNTYzeb3GMP1IZqRrHpJDVWW12mlM-dfZyNRZiLBfvbwehA$> 
>> .
>>
>> Please add/modify.
>>
>> Warmly,
>>
>> Tomslin
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 16:51, Tomslin Samme-Nlar 
>> <mesumbeslin at gmail.com <mailto:mesumbeslin at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> ??? Hi all,
>>
>> ??? I am developing an agenda for our meeting. Is there any topics you
>> ??? would like to see discussed?
>>
>> ??? Warmly,
>> ??? 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


From julf at julf.com  Thu Mar  9 05:22:15 2023
From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 22:22:15 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Ext] Re: NCSG PC meeting in Cancun
In-Reply-To: <92ad28c2-8613-fb38-048e-cd49b2b21570@KathyKleiman.com>
References: <CAM8DdeXGHqskSzsQFUjvNZK_0XrkpsDth4Yz5XVHLgJQ_C2mYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM8DdeVwx=czUWOAB1qF2ikqc9jJRA7XHMnMCgDHqJ73Q+ssLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <EAE707C8-B266-4816-9AF3-4FD4B8C7A302@icann.org>
 <a0e63323-0c5a-b671-459d-36273a19c291@julf.com>
 <92ad28c2-8613-fb38-048e-cd49b2b21570@KathyKleiman.com>
Message-ID: <867c1b74-162c-20d6-5b04-462894de42f8@julf.com>

Great! Thanks!

	Julf


On 09/03/2023 00:49, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Yes!
> 
> Kathy
> 
> On 3/8/2023 5:05 PM, Johan Helsingius wrote:
>> No slides for me for the PC session.
>>
>> ????Julf
>>
>> On 07/03/2023 15:03, Andrea Glandon wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> If you are presenting during the NCSG PC session in Cancun, please 
>>> let me know if you will have slides and send them to me at least 24 
>>> hours prior to the session.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>> Andrea
>>>
>>> *From: *Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at GMAIL.COM>
>>> *Date: *Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 14:07
>>> *To: *ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> *Cc: *Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>, Brenda Brewer 
>>> <brenda.brewer at icann.org>
>>> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: NCSG PC meeting in Cancun
>>>
>>> Hi again,
>>>
>>> Thought I should share the Google doc Andrea had created for drafting 
>>> the PC meeting agenda
>>>
>>> NCSG Policy: 
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bmYVSjk-Qpsw9W98beS7cx9kQ805KvaqMEt4SR_dYpE/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1bmYVSjk-Qpsw9W98beS7cx9kQ805KvaqMEt4SR_dYpE/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!_sz1qtzzXRpxzAFhXnxm4_wtYUnhNaRZ68mBkI_v73lOwAGdNTYzeb3GMP1IZqRrHpJDVWW12mlM-dfZyNRZiLBfvbwehA$> .
>>>
>>> Please add/modify.
>>>
>>> Warmly,
>>>
>>> Tomslin
>>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 16:51, Tomslin Samme-Nlar 
>>> <mesumbeslin at gmail.com <mailto:mesumbeslin at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ??? Hi all,
>>>
>>> ??? I am developing an agenda for our meeting. Is there any topics you
>>> ??? would like to see discussed?
>>>
>>> ??? Warmly,
>>> ??? 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
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc


From andrea.glandon at icann.org  Sun Mar 12 03:23:28 2023
From: andrea.glandon at icann.org (Andrea Glandon)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 01:23:28 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] DOODLE-Please complete-Board seat 14 interviews
Message-ID: <2D030674-B95A-4907-BAA1-3B66F6D010EE@icann.org>

Hello NCSG EC & PC,

Please complete this Doodle for the scheduling of the Board seat 14 interviews with Damon Ashcraft and Mark Datysgeld, the week following ICANN76. I will send each of the candidates an email to complete the Doodle as well, separately. Please let me know if you have any questions.

https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/bqQKDr2b

Thank you!
Andrea Glandon
Policy Operations Coordinator
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Skype ID:  acglandon76



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230312/2c629f30/attachment.htm>

From manju at nii.org.tw  Sun Mar 12 16:21:46 2023
From: manju at nii.org.tw (=?UTF-8?B?6Zmz5pu86Iy5IE1hbmp1IENoZW4=?=)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 09:21:46 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] DOODLE-Please complete-Board seat 14 interviews
In-Reply-To: <2D030674-B95A-4907-BAA1-3B66F6D010EE@icann.org>
References: <2D030674-B95A-4907-BAA1-3B66F6D010EE@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAMeQZi3MG6JMBRJKZGzWEEZubD+Q9CaREDxRCwTrOPTF3ebBgA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Andrea,

Sorry to be a pain but could you please provide on the side an excel
spreadsheet that indicates the time in UTC?
It's just it's now showing Canc?n time in doodle but we'll be in different
time zones once we're back from the meeting.

Thank you so much!


Best,
Manju


On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 8:23?PM Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
wrote:

> Hello NCSG EC & PC,
>
>
>
> Please complete this Doodle for the scheduling of the Board seat 14
> interviews with Damon Ashcraft and Mark Datysgeld, the week following
> ICANN76. I will send each of the candidates an email to complete the Doodle
> as well, separately. Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
>
>
> https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/bqQKDr2b
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
> *Andrea Glandon*
>
> Policy Operations Coordinator
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> *Skype ID:*  acglandon76
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230312/3c3721e5/attachment.htm>

From andrea.glandon at icann.org  Sun Mar 12 16:35:29 2023
From: andrea.glandon at icann.org (Andrea Glandon)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 14:35:29 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Ext] Re: DOODLE-Please complete-Board seat 14
 interviews
In-Reply-To: <CAMeQZi3MG6JMBRJKZGzWEEZubD+Q9CaREDxRCwTrOPTF3ebBgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2D030674-B95A-4907-BAA1-3B66F6D010EE@icann.org>
 <CAMeQZi3MG6JMBRJKZGzWEEZubD+Q9CaREDxRCwTrOPTF3ebBgA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8D85F3C8-C0F9-40A1-A6A4-AC8E96398661@icann.org>

Hello Manju,

My apologies, I didn?t even think of that!

First to note for all,  Damon Ashcraft is only available on Friday, 24 March at 14:00 UTC.

Please find attached the UTC times each day.

Thanks!
Kind Regards,
Andrea


From: ??? Manju Chen <manju at nii.org.tw>
Date: Sunday, March 12, 2023 at 09:22
To: Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
Cc: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>, "ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is" <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [NCSG-PC] DOODLE-Please complete-Board seat 14 interviews

Hi Andrea,

Sorry to be a pain but could you please provide on the side an excel spreadsheet that indicates the time in UTC?
It's just it's now showing Canc?n time in doodle but we'll be in different time zones once we're back from the meeting.

Thank you so much!


Best,
Manju


On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 8:23?PM Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org<mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org>> wrote:
Hello NCSG EC & PC,

Please complete this Doodle for the scheduling of the Board seat 14 interviews with Damon Ashcraft and Mark Datysgeld, the week following ICANN76. I will send each of the candidates an email to complete the Doodle as well, separately. Please let me know if you have any questions.

https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/bqQKDr2b [doodle.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/bqQKDr2b__;!!PtGJab4!9AjxLVMQwrQ2Y_ahY2UQApTKJfnw1F7QRA5-2auVVKpr-74hBx2PyEJJMIqCW_RjawLs-bxvgTgrrRbsByHtHkbf$>

Thank you!
Andrea Glandon
Policy Operations Coordinator
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Skype ID:  acglandon76



_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc [lists.ncsg.is]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc__;!!PtGJab4!9AjxLVMQwrQ2Y_ahY2UQApTKJfnw1F7QRA5-2auVVKpr-74hBx2PyEJJMIqCW_RjawLs-bxvgTgrrRbsB9mda3C9$>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230312/24b06a38/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Board seat 14 UTC interview times.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 8960 bytes
Desc: Board seat 14 UTC interview times.xlsx
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230312/24b06a38/attachment.xlsx>

From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Sun Mar 12 21:20:19 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 20:20:19 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [PLEASE READ] Call for ICANN Board Seat 14 Nominations
In-Reply-To: <CAM8DdeUatZbqP-dFbvoLh=EmebH=cPU-yuKNU2eW=BD8Y8Tdqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM8DdeUatZbqP-dFbvoLh=EmebH=cPU-yuKNU2eW=BD8Y8Tdqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeW5z97kzmsTrQtncqe9X4cTmonB+8vpbmjYG=aHbb-kCw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

We've received a number of nominations from the NCSG call. I have pasted
the names below for your consideration and I will forward the actual EOIs
to your individual mailboxes because of the confidentiality requirement.

   1. Rafik Damak
   2. Russ Housely
   3. Hago Dafalla
   4. Ephraim Percy


Warmly,
Tomslin


On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 23:48, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear NCSG,
>
> As you might be aware, In accordance with the ICANN bylaws, the GNSO shall
> make selections to fill Seats 13 and 14
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#X-3.8> on the
> ICANN Board. Each of the two voting Houses of the GNSO, shall make a
> selection to fill one of two ICANN Board seats. The Non-Contracted Party
> House selects a representative to fill Seat 14. At the bottom of this
> email, I have pasted the process spelled out in the GNSO Operating
> Procedures
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-7-ncph-election-procedures-seat-14-24oct19-en.pdf>
> .
>
> The Policy Committee is calling for nominations from members to nominate
> someone from NCSG or outside of NCSG for the board position (The candidate
> doesn't have to be an NCSG member) no later than *Friday 10th March 2023*.
> This is the first time we are making such a call so bear with us on the
> short timelines.
>
> The candidate, while sharing our values should have a more balanced
> approach. That is balancing between both NCSG and CSG views on issues where
> possible. Candidates will be considered based on their track record of work
> at GNSO or other Internet Governance environments (leadership roles at IETF
> for example), and evidence of their ability to take a balanced approach on
> issues.
>
> Please send your nominations to me at mesumbeslin at gmail.com and copy the
> NCSG chair at julf.helsingius at gmail.com and our staff support Andrea at
> andrea.glandon at icann.org
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
>
>
> *Proposal Agreed to by CSG and NCSG on 15 March 2018 at ICANN 61*
>
> 1.      *Have Preliminary Conversations*
>
> a. NCSG to ask members to identify possible candidates.
>
> b. CSG to ask its constituencies to identify possible candidates.
>
> c. NomCom Appointee (NCA) will be included in the process as an advisor.
>
> d. Set preliminary target dates for the process.
>
> e. Consider that the incumbent can be selected again and ask if willing
> to run again.
>
> 2.      *Determine Willingness and Availability of Any Candidates*
>
> a. Ask candidates to provide a Statement of Interest (SOI).
>
> b. The candidates should undergo a background check for criminal records
> and other due
>
> diligence checks through a process provided by ICANN, which is used by
> NomCom.
>
> *3.      **Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and Commercial
> Stakeholder Group (CSG) to Consult on Available Candidates*
>
> *4.      *
>
> a. Interviews can take place and the NCA can be invited to join the
> interviews. There can be joint NCPH interviews.
>
> b. NCSG and CSG leaders must agree on one consensus candidate to run for
> election. There should be a timeline of when they should reach consensus
> on the candidate. If they cannot, they must identify more candidates to
> interview and come to a consensus.
>
>
>
> 5.      *Election*
>
> a. The CSG leaders and the NCSG leaders shall vote on the candidate
> running against None of The Above (NOTA). The CSG and NCSG shall have one
> vote each, which will be determined by each of their internal procedures.
>
> b. The threshold for a successful candidate to win the election is 2
> votes.
>
> c. If NOTA receives 1 or more votes, then the call for nomination should
> be reopened, start from step 1.
>
> d. If one or more alternate candidates are identified, restart the
> process at step 2.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230312/c2f26e17/attachment.htm>

From julf at julf.com  Mon Mar 13 00:08:56 2023
From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 17:08:56 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
Message-ID: <581ba0e1-c997-06be-a5fa-5d4f6721a028@julf.com>

Any volunteers to present specific questions?

I have Kathy on 5.

Who is doing the final wording of our response to the question from the
board?

	Julf


1.     The GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI) Task Force has recommended 
that participants must disclose the identities of their clients or the 
employers they represent as a condition to participating in a working 
group. We believe this should be done without exception to enhance 
transparency and prevent group take-overs. What are the board's thoughts 
on this?

2.    Has the Board reviewed the effectiveness of the implementation of 
ICANN's mandate during the COVID lockdown?  How much money was saved by 
not traveling, and what were the impacts on policy effectiveness, 
outreach and inclusion?  Should ICANN continue to travel to the extent 
that it does, given concern for our carbon footprint?  What do we gain, 
and what do we lose with this attempt at global outreach and are there 
better ways to meet with different regional populations and markets?

3.    From NPOC: When will NPOC finally get its seat at NomCom? Could 
the rebalancing recommendation be taken further on how exactly the 
rebalancing could happen? If necessary, outsource another review team to 
figure it out, although we'd like to point out that CSG has one too many 
and NCSG one less than they should have. Since the community isn't able 
to reach consensus to abide by the recommendation that we got six years 
ago, the board should carry it through.

4.    In her blog recapping the January workshop, Tripti suggested that 
the Board anticipates making incremental decisions leading up to the 
final decision on opening a new application window for new gTLDs'. Can 
you elaborate on what 'incremental decisions' are to be expected?

5.    Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of NCSG. The SubPro 
ODA suggested that the applicant support program start 18 months prior 
to the anticipated opening of the application submission period. The ODA 
also offered 2 options for implementing SubPro outputs, where option 2 
would only require 18 months of implementation. While the GGP continues 
its work, it seems impossible to incorporate the Applicant Support 
Program in time for the next round in the aggressive timeline of Option 
2. We appreciate the org's effort in mitigating risks and enhancing 
efficiency by developing option 2, but the NCSG feels strongly that the 
next round will be unfair if we open it without a meaningful and 
genuinely effective applicant support program.

6.    We have received questions from the Board about how to be agile 
and come up with new ways of working on issues to increase efficiency. 
However, we fear this desire to move things forward can damage the 
inclusive, diverse multistakeholder model that defines ICANN. Option 2 
is a great example of this zeal for "agility" as opposed to fundamental 
fairness and concern for small organizations in this competitive 
environment. How does the Board plan to balance the desire to be agile 
without compromising the due process, inclusiveness, and diversity of 
the multistakeholder model in its deliberations, particularly with 
respect to the SubPro ODA?

7.    What is the process for finding a new CEO for ICANN and at what 
stage are we with that?

8.    What is ICANN doing to become carbon neutral and thus sustainable? 
Why isn't traveling to ICANN meetings by land (when possible) the 
preferred method of traveling? Especially in cases, where traveling by 
land would actually be the faster and more convenient option?

9.    What is ICANN doing to better appreciate the numerous amount of 
time that volunteers contribute to ICANN?


10.    How will ICANN align with the Global  Digital Compact in relation 
to Summit of the Future in 2024




From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com  Mon Mar 13 00:09:39 2023
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 17:09:39 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <581ba0e1-c997-06be-a5fa-5d4f6721a028@julf.com>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
 <581ba0e1-c997-06be-a5fa-5d4f6721a028@julf.com>
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvC+vHaXyQiwNG=pzh6dZMsAkuRBQ864=mTqNvUpNyfi=A@mail.gmail.com>

I will do the response wording to the board and send it to the mailing
list. Ill do that tonight hopefully.

On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:07 PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:

> Any volunteers to present specific questions?
>
> I have Kathy on 5.
>
> Who is doing the final wording of our response to the question from the
> board?
>
>         Julf
>
>
> 1.     The GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI) Task Force has recommended
> that participants must disclose the identities of their clients or the
> employers they represent as a condition to participating in a working
> group. We believe this should be done without exception to enhance
> transparency and prevent group take-overs. What are the board's thoughts
> on this?
>
> 2.    Has the Board reviewed the effectiveness of the implementation of
> ICANN's mandate during the COVID lockdown?  How much money was saved by
> not traveling, and what were the impacts on policy effectiveness,
> outreach and inclusion?  Should ICANN continue to travel to the extent
> that it does, given concern for our carbon footprint?  What do we gain,
> and what do we lose with this attempt at global outreach and are there
> better ways to meet with different regional populations and markets?
>
> 3.    From NPOC: When will NPOC finally get its seat at NomCom? Could
> the rebalancing recommendation be taken further on how exactly the
> rebalancing could happen? If necessary, outsource another review team to
> figure it out, although we'd like to point out that CSG has one too many
> and NCSG one less than they should have. Since the community isn't able
> to reach consensus to abide by the recommendation that we got six years
> ago, the board should carry it through.
>
> 4.    In her blog recapping the January workshop, Tripti suggested that
> the Board anticipates making incremental decisions leading up to the
> final decision on opening a new application window for new gTLDs'. Can
> you elaborate on what 'incremental decisions' are to be expected?
>
> 5.    Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of NCSG. The SubPro
> ODA suggested that the applicant support program start 18 months prior
> to the anticipated opening of the application submission period. The ODA
> also offered 2 options for implementing SubPro outputs, where option 2
> would only require 18 months of implementation. While the GGP continues
> its work, it seems impossible to incorporate the Applicant Support
> Program in time for the next round in the aggressive timeline of Option
> 2. We appreciate the org's effort in mitigating risks and enhancing
> efficiency by developing option 2, but the NCSG feels strongly that the
> next round will be unfair if we open it without a meaningful and
> genuinely effective applicant support program.
>
> 6.    We have received questions from the Board about how to be agile
> and come up with new ways of working on issues to increase efficiency.
> However, we fear this desire to move things forward can damage the
> inclusive, diverse multistakeholder model that defines ICANN. Option 2
> is a great example of this zeal for "agility" as opposed to fundamental
> fairness and concern for small organizations in this competitive
> environment. How does the Board plan to balance the desire to be agile
> without compromising the due process, inclusiveness, and diversity of
> the multistakeholder model in its deliberations, particularly with
> respect to the SubPro ODA?
>
> 7.    What is the process for finding a new CEO for ICANN and at what
> stage are we with that?
>
> 8.    What is ICANN doing to become carbon neutral and thus sustainable?
> Why isn't traveling to ICANN meetings by land (when possible) the
> preferred method of traveling? Especially in cases, where traveling by
> land would actually be the faster and more convenient option?
>
> 9.    What is ICANN doing to better appreciate the numerous amount of
> time that volunteers contribute to ICANN?
>
>
> 10.    How will ICANN align with the Global  Digital Compact in relation
> to Summit of the Future in 2024
>
>
> --
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230312/9bb3cff5/attachment.htm>

From manju at nii.org.tw  Mon Mar 13 00:11:31 2023
From: manju at nii.org.tw (=?UTF-8?B?6Zmz5pu86Iy5IE1hbmp1IENoZW4=?=)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 17:11:31 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <581ba0e1-c997-06be-a5fa-5d4f6721a028@julf.com>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
 <581ba0e1-c997-06be-a5fa-5d4f6721a028@julf.com>
Message-ID: <CAMeQZi3SpNyLbSGkbRkYA+6DANrMP8gf5vPJSeTTmWHwWUugBQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:07?PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:

> Any volunteers to present specific questions?
>
> I have Kathy on 5.
>
> Who is doing the final wording of our response to the question from the
> board?
>

Wasn't Tomslin the one who perfectly nailed it this morning?



>
>         Julf
>
>
> 1.     The GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI) Task Force has recommended
> that participants must disclose the identities of their clients or the
> employers they represent as a condition to participating in a working
> group. We believe this should be done without exception to enhance
> transparency and prevent group take-overs. What are the board's thoughts
> on this?
>
> 2.    Has the Board reviewed the effectiveness of the implementation of
> ICANN's mandate during the COVID lockdown?  How much money was saved by
> not traveling, and what were the impacts on policy effectiveness,
> outreach and inclusion?  Should ICANN continue to travel to the extent
> that it does, given concern for our carbon footprint?  What do we gain,
> and what do we lose with this attempt at global outreach and are there
> better ways to meet with different regional populations and markets?
>
> 3.    From NPOC: When will NPOC finally get its seat at NomCom? Could
> the rebalancing recommendation be taken further on how exactly the
> rebalancing could happen? If necessary, outsource another review team to
> figure it out, although we'd like to point out that CSG has one too many
> and NCSG one less than they should have. Since the community isn't able
> to reach consensus to abide by the recommendation that we got six years
> ago, the board should carry it through.
>
> 4.    In her blog recapping the January workshop, Tripti suggested that
> the Board anticipates making incremental decisions leading up to the
> final decision on opening a new application window for new gTLDs'. Can
> you elaborate on what 'incremental decisions' are to be expected?
>
> 5.    Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of NCSG. The SubPro
> ODA suggested that the applicant support program start 18 months prior
> to the anticipated opening of the application submission period. The ODA
> also offered 2 options for implementing SubPro outputs, where option 2
> would only require 18 months of implementation. While the GGP continues
> its work, it seems impossible to incorporate the Applicant Support
> Program in time for the next round in the aggressive timeline of Option
> 2. We appreciate the org's effort in mitigating risks and enhancing
> efficiency by developing option 2, but the NCSG feels strongly that the
> next round will be unfair if we open it without a meaningful and
> genuinely effective applicant support program.
>
> 6.    We have received questions from the Board about how to be agile
> and come up with new ways of working on issues to increase efficiency.
> However, we fear this desire to move things forward can damage the
> inclusive, diverse multistakeholder model that defines ICANN. Option 2
> is a great example of this zeal for "agility" as opposed to fundamental
> fairness and concern for small organizations in this competitive
> environment. How does the Board plan to balance the desire to be agile
> without compromising the due process, inclusiveness, and diversity of
> the multistakeholder model in its deliberations, particularly with
> respect to the SubPro ODA?
>
> 7.    What is the process for finding a new CEO for ICANN and at what
> stage are we with that?
>
> 8.    What is ICANN doing to become carbon neutral and thus sustainable?
> Why isn't traveling to ICANN meetings by land (when possible) the
> preferred method of traveling? Especially in cases, where traveling by
> land would actually be the faster and more convenient option?
>
> 9.    What is ICANN doing to better appreciate the numerous amount of
> time that volunteers contribute to ICANN?
>
>
> 10.    How will ICANN align with the Global  Digital Compact in relation
> to Summit of the Future in 2024
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230312/ded375d0/attachment.htm>

From julf at julf.com  Mon Mar 13 00:15:22 2023
From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 17:15:22 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvC+vHaXyQiwNG=pzh6dZMsAkuRBQ864=mTqNvUpNyfi=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
 <581ba0e1-c997-06be-a5fa-5d4f6721a028@julf.com>
 <CAN1qJvC+vHaXyQiwNG=pzh6dZMsAkuRBQ864=mTqNvUpNyfi=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <062b160a-d164-4016-a842-0f6ca574d9f4@julf.com>

On 12/03/2023 17:09, farzaneh badii wrote:
> I will do the response wording to the board and send it to the mailing 
> list. Ill do that tonight hopefully.

Great! Thanks!!

	Julf



From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com  Mon Mar 13 00:17:01 2023
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 17:17:01 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <062b160a-d164-4016-a842-0f6ca574d9f4@julf.com>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
 <581ba0e1-c997-06be-a5fa-5d4f6721a028@julf.com>
 <CAN1qJvC+vHaXyQiwNG=pzh6dZMsAkuRBQ864=mTqNvUpNyfi=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <062b160a-d164-4016-a842-0f6ca574d9f4@julf.com>
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvB61CPvW+Ur6QHXjMiYG=7v9rvbvvwdsRnUXyin-5xasA@mail.gmail.com>

If Tomslin has the time to do it I think he is better placed because he was
also involved with our objection to creating the closed generic group.

On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:14 PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:

> On 12/03/2023 17:09, farzaneh badii wrote:
> > I will do the response wording to the board and send it to the mailing
> > list. Ill do that tonight hopefully.
>
> Great! Thanks!!
>
>         Julf
>
> --
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230312/7dd4bcf9/attachment.htm>

From bruna.mrtns at gmail.com  Mon Mar 13 00:21:39 2023
From: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com (Bruna Martins dos Santos)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 19:21:39 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvB61CPvW+Ur6QHXjMiYG=7v9rvbvvwdsRnUXyin-5xasA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
 <581ba0e1-c997-06be-a5fa-5d4f6721a028@julf.com>
 <CAN1qJvC+vHaXyQiwNG=pzh6dZMsAkuRBQ864=mTqNvUpNyfi=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <062b160a-d164-4016-a842-0f6ca574d9f4@julf.com>
 <CAN1qJvB61CPvW+Ur6QHXjMiYG=7v9rvbvvwdsRnUXyin-5xasA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADAEEV1QZnprQiikah9TXip=v-APr_-U0mRC-QmykOciQsoO9w@mail.gmail.com>

Hey all, I will join remotely so if you want a remote presenter I could do
one of the questions.

Also, since there are 10 questions and normally we submitted like 3-4, it
might be worth listing them in some sort of priority order or the ones we
really don?t want to leave unanswered.

Best,
Bruna

farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> schrieb am So. 12. M?rz 2023 um
19:18:

> If Tomslin has the time to do it I think he is better placed because he
> was also involved with our objection to creating the closed generic group.
>
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:14 PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/03/2023 17:09, farzaneh badii wrote:
>> > I will do the response wording to the board and send it to the mailing
>> > list. Ill do that tonight hopefully.
>>
>> Great! Thanks!!
>>
>>         Julf
>>
>> --
> Farzaneh
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-- 

*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

German Chancellor Fellow 21' (Bundeskanzler-Stipendiatin) | Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation <https://www.humboldt-foundation.de/>

Member | Coaliz?o Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus  <https://igcaucus.org/>

Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins> // Skype:
bruna.martinsantos
Email: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230312/2975e810/attachment.htm>

From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com  Mon Mar 13 00:26:28 2023
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 17:26:28 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvB61CPvW+Ur6QHXjMiYG=7v9rvbvvwdsRnUXyin-5xasA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
 <581ba0e1-c997-06be-a5fa-5d4f6721a028@julf.com>
 <CAN1qJvC+vHaXyQiwNG=pzh6dZMsAkuRBQ864=mTqNvUpNyfi=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <062b160a-d164-4016-a842-0f6ca574d9f4@julf.com>
 <CAN1qJvB61CPvW+Ur6QHXjMiYG=7v9rvbvvwdsRnUXyin-5xasA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvC3s1xZerRpZp96T=_Jhr_-BRWjFeEzWxDf9o6CrtDi0g@mail.gmail.com>

Here is the relevant part of our letter:

?3. Such ?facilitated dialogue? is giving GAC a more pronounced role in
policy making than its advisory role as mandated in ICANN Bylaw.
GAC is welcome to engage in the policy development process in the early
stage as any other SO/ACs in order to ensure a policy outcome that takes
the multistakeholder perspective into account.
That said, it is important and critical that we honour the distinct
responsibilities and roles between the GNSO as the policy-making body and
GAC as an advisory committee.
And for that, it is critical that we make sure the multistakeholder model
is fair and balanced. Current practice of ACs participating in consensus
vote in PDPs while still enjoying the privilege of having their advice as
carrying some kind of different weight than the policy recommendations is
creating an asymmetrical power relation among AC and SO. This uneven
balance can negatively impact the legitimacy and accountability of ICANN?s
multistakeholder model.
In light of the above mentioned, it remains unclear how a facilitated
dialogue as proposed can create any other outcome than what the SubPro
couldn?t have achieved with 5 years of hard work. On that note, the
Noncommercial Stakeholder Group would also like to note that this
?facilitated dialogue? can create a dangerous precedent of re-opening
issues. The community should learn to accept the product of difficult
compromise. And we should all learn to draw the line of when policy
recommendations are made and resolved by Council/Board, they are regarded
and respected as Consensus Policy.
The NCSG understands that the issue of Closed Generics remains without an
explicit GNSO recommendation as reported in the SubPro Final Report.
However, rather than inventing processes and setting a dangerous precedent,
we propose using a more balanced multi stakeholder approach in seeking
input on this topic. Therefore, we urge the GNSO to reconsider its support
to the proposed dialogue.
3

 Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
Representing the interests and concerns of non-commercial Internet users in
domain name policy
Therefore, instead of pursuing a ?closed dialogue? with the GAC where the
scope and interlocutors are dictated by the ICANN Board, the NCSG
encourages the GNSO to seek community comments and perspectives on how to
proceed with Closed Generics throughout the already established
participatory mechanisms used by the ICANN community (i.e. public comments
and PDPs). We trust that a broader conversation can serve as a good
experience to collect the main issues and concerns around this topic, as
well as guidance to the GNSO Council members responsible for leading this
debate internally - should it occur despite our deep concerns for the ICANN
Multistakeholder model and precedent. How else will this small team - some
with very long-held personal views on the subject - be bound to a
discussion on behalf of the entire GNSO Community??

What was the board response? We should draft our response considering that
too.

On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:17 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> If Tomslin has the time to do it I think he is better placed because he
> was also involved with our objection to creating the closed generic group.
>
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:14 PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/03/2023 17:09, farzaneh badii wrote:
>> > I will do the response wording to the board and send it to the mailing
>> > list. Ill do that tonight hopefully.
>>
>> Great! Thanks!!
>>
>>         Julf
>>
>> --
> Farzaneh
>
-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230312/e0623a0a/attachment.htm>

From bruna.mrtns at gmail.com  Mon Mar 13 01:48:52 2023
From: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com (Bruna Martins dos Santos)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 20:48:52 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvC3s1xZerRpZp96T=_Jhr_-BRWjFeEzWxDf9o6CrtDi0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
 <581ba0e1-c997-06be-a5fa-5d4f6721a028@julf.com>
 <CAN1qJvC+vHaXyQiwNG=pzh6dZMsAkuRBQ864=mTqNvUpNyfi=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <062b160a-d164-4016-a842-0f6ca574d9f4@julf.com>
 <CAN1qJvB61CPvW+Ur6QHXjMiYG=7v9rvbvvwdsRnUXyin-5xasA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN1qJvC3s1xZerRpZp96T=_Jhr_-BRWjFeEzWxDf9o6CrtDi0g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADAEEV1fJCgJ8aBKSVNzQ2is-yBkdAq-gbCo8SsZNjp3Nccn=g@mail.gmail.com>

Once again, thanks Julf for drafting the questions and sending them to us.
I have a few comments/suggestions below:

1. Amount of questions: Too many questions so it might be worth placing
them in a priority order. Normally we would submit 3-4 questions tops, so
we could have some level of a debate with the board on each of them.
2. GDC: The question about the GDC I would personally exclude unless you
want to rehash it. ICANN is not part of any of the UN structures so I?d
either change towards a simple question about their engagement in the GDC
process, or if they have any comments on how it could possibly affect MS
participation or broader IG processes. Bc the way the question is
formulated  could result in a blunt answer like: ?we have no obligation to
align it?s an UN process?.
3. Repetitive questions: We have been asking the board both about volunteer
burnout and the NPOC seat at nomcom for like the last 3 meetings at least,
and I'm afraid that by doing so it might make us look a bit subjectless.
Therefore, id consider not asking the one about burnout and use the NPOC
Nomcom seat one more as a statement.
4. NPOC @ Nomcom: We know that this is not necessarily an issue the board
can solve + they have sympathy for our request. So my suggestion, again,
would be to deliver this question as a political statement that doesn't
necessarily wait for a Board answer. And by doing that, we should avoid
naming constituencies or groups and opt for a more high-level comment
that points out that the lack of representation/stakeholder diversity in
the majority of the NomCom processes is also due to the fact that our
stakeholder is not fully present there.
5. Travel: I'd leave the question about travel out as well. Bc a. It?s
possible to book train travel through FCM if I?m not mistaken and b. A good
network or trains is pretty much an European privilege, so I?m reading the
second part of the question (about land travelling) a bit disconnected with
the reality of a global community with lots of people from countries where
this is not possible.

Best,
Bruna

On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 7:27?PM farzaneh badii via NCSG-EC <
ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

> Here is the relevant part of our letter:
>
> ?3. Such ?facilitated dialogue? is giving GAC a more pronounced role in
> policy making than its advisory role as mandated in ICANN Bylaw.
> GAC is welcome to engage in the policy development process in the early
> stage as any other SO/ACs in order to ensure a policy outcome that takes
> the multistakeholder perspective into account.
> That said, it is important and critical that we honour the distinct
> responsibilities and roles between the GNSO as the policy-making body and
> GAC as an advisory committee.
> And for that, it is critical that we make sure the multistakeholder model
> is fair and balanced. Current practice of ACs participating in consensus
> vote in PDPs while still enjoying the privilege of having their advice as
> carrying some kind of different weight than the policy recommendations is
> creating an asymmetrical power relation among AC and SO. This uneven
> balance can negatively impact the legitimacy and accountability of ICANN?s
> multistakeholder model.
> In light of the above mentioned, it remains unclear how a facilitated
> dialogue as proposed can create any other outcome than what the SubPro
> couldn?t have achieved with 5 years of hard work. On that note, the
> Noncommercial Stakeholder Group would also like to note that this
> ?facilitated dialogue? can create a dangerous precedent of re-opening
> issues. The community should learn to accept the product of difficult
> compromise. And we should all learn to draw the line of when policy
> recommendations are made and resolved by Council/Board, they are regarded
> and respected as Consensus Policy.
> The NCSG understands that the issue of Closed Generics remains without an
> explicit GNSO recommendation as reported in the SubPro Final Report.
> However, rather than inventing processes and setting a dangerous precedent,
> we propose using a more balanced multi stakeholder approach in seeking
> input on this topic. Therefore, we urge the GNSO to reconsider its support
> to the proposed dialogue.
> 3
>
>  Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> Representing the interests and concerns of non-commercial Internet users
> in domain name policy
> Therefore, instead of pursuing a ?closed dialogue? with the GAC where the
> scope and interlocutors are dictated by the ICANN Board, the NCSG
> encourages the GNSO to seek community comments and perspectives on how to
> proceed with Closed Generics throughout the already established
> participatory mechanisms used by the ICANN community (i.e. public comments
> and PDPs). We trust that a broader conversation can serve as a good
> experience to collect the main issues and concerns around this topic, as
> well as guidance to the GNSO Council members responsible for leading this
> debate internally - should it occur despite our deep concerns for the ICANN
> Multistakeholder model and precedent. How else will this small team - some
> with very long-held personal views on the subject - be bound to a
> discussion on behalf of the entire GNSO Community??
>
> What was the board response? We should draft our response considering that
> too.
>
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:17 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If Tomslin has the time to do it I think he is better placed because he
>> was also involved with our objection to creating the closed generic group.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:14 PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/03/2023 17:09, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>> > I will do the response wording to the board and send it to the mailing
>>> > list. Ill do that tonight hopefully.
>>>
>>> Great! Thanks!!
>>>
>>>         Julf
>>>
>>> --
>> Farzaneh
>>
> --
> Farzaneh
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>


-- 

*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

German Chancellor Fellow 21' (Bundeskanzler-Stipendiatin) | Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation <https://www.humboldt-foundation.de/>

Member | Coaliz?o Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus  <https://igcaucus.org/>

Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins> // Skype:
bruna.martinsantos
Email: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230312/a50e1403/attachment.htm>

From julf at julf.com  Mon Mar 13 02:06:50 2023
From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 19:06:50 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <CADAEEV1fJCgJ8aBKSVNzQ2is-yBkdAq-gbCo8SsZNjp3Nccn=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
 <581ba0e1-c997-06be-a5fa-5d4f6721a028@julf.com>
 <CAN1qJvC+vHaXyQiwNG=pzh6dZMsAkuRBQ864=mTqNvUpNyfi=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <062b160a-d164-4016-a842-0f6ca574d9f4@julf.com>
 <CAN1qJvB61CPvW+Ur6QHXjMiYG=7v9rvbvvwdsRnUXyin-5xasA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN1qJvC3s1xZerRpZp96T=_Jhr_-BRWjFeEzWxDf9o6CrtDi0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADAEEV1fJCgJ8aBKSVNzQ2is-yBkdAq-gbCo8SsZNjp3Nccn=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5378e88d-7aa9-5039-ae0d-e946044b5460@julf.com>

Thanks Bruna, I agree with most of your points. The questions are
already in priority order, and the assumption is that there won't
be time for very many of them. It was expressed that we'd rather
have too many questions than cull ones, as the written questions
still send a message to the board.

Some questions are there only because NPOC felt very strongly about
them.

	Julf


On 12/03/2023 18:48, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote:
> Once again, thanks Julf for drafting the questions and sending them to 
> us. I have a few comments/suggestions below:
> 
> 1. Amount of questions: Too many questions so it might be worth placing 
> them in a priority order. Normally we would submit 3-4 questions tops, 
> so we could have some level of a debate with the board on each of them.
> 2. GDC: The question about the GDC I would personally exclude unless you 
> want to rehash it. ICANN is not part of any of the UN structures so I?d 
> either change towards a simple question about their engagement in the 
> GDC process, or if they have any comments on how it could possibly 
> affect MS participation or broader IG processes. Bc the way the question 
> is formulated ?could result in a blunt answer like: ?we have no 
> obligation to align it?s an UN process?.
> 3. Repetitive questions: We have been asking the board both about 
> volunteer burnout and the NPOC seat at nomcom for like the last 3 
> meetings at least, and I'm afraid that by doing so it might make us look 
> a bit subjectless. Therefore, id consider not asking the one about 
> burnout and use the NPOC Nomcom seat one more as a statement.
> 4. NPOC?@ Nomcom: We know that this is not necessarily an issue the 
> board can solve + they have sympathy for our?request. So my suggestion, 
> again, would be to deliver this question as a political statement that 
> doesn't necessarily wait for a?Board answer. And by doing that, we 
> should avoid naming constituencies or groups and opt for a more 
> high-level comment that?points out that the lack of 
> representation/stakeholder diversity in the majority of the NomCom 
> processes is also due to the fact that our stakeholder is not fully 
> present there.
> 5. Travel: I'd leave the question about travel out as well. Bc a. It?s 
> possible to book train travel through FCM if I?m not mistaken and b. A 
> good network or trains is pretty much an European privilege, so I?m 
> reading the second part of the question (about land travelling) a bit 
> disconnected with the reality of a global community with lots of people 
> from countries where this is not possible.
> 
> Best,
> Bruna
> 
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 7:27?PM farzaneh badii via NCSG-EC 
> <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
> 
>     Here is the relevant part of our letter:
> 
>     ?3. Such ?facilitated dialogue? is giving GAC a more pronounced role
>     in policy making than its advisory role as mandated in ICANN Bylaw.
>     GAC is welcome to engage in the policy development process in the
>     early stage as any other SO/ACs in order to ensure a policy outcome
>     that takes the multistakeholder perspective into account.
>     That said, it is important and critical that we honour the distinct
>     responsibilities and roles between the GNSO as the policy-making
>     body and GAC as an advisory committee.
>     And for that, it is critical that we make sure the multistakeholder
>     model is fair and balanced. Current practice of ACs participating in
>     consensus vote in PDPs while still enjoying the privilege of having
>     their advice as carrying some kind of different weight than the
>     policy recommendations is creating an asymmetrical power relation
>     among AC and SO. This uneven balance can negatively impact the
>     legitimacy and accountability of ICANN?s multistakeholder model.
>     In light of the above mentioned, it remains unclear how a
>     facilitated dialogue as proposed can create any other outcome than
>     what the SubPro couldn?t have achieved with 5 years of hard work. On
>     that note, the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group would also like to
>     note that this ?facilitated dialogue? can create a dangerous
>     precedent of re-opening issues. The community should learn to accept
>     the product of difficult compromise. And we should all learn to draw
>     the line of when policy recommendations are made and resolved by
>     Council/Board, they are regarded and respected as Consensus Policy.
>     The NCSG understands that the issue of Closed Generics remains
>     without an explicit GNSO recommendation as reported in the SubPro
>     Final Report. However, rather than inventing processes and setting a
>     dangerous precedent, we propose using a more balanced multi
>     stakeholder approach in seeking input on this topic. Therefore, we
>     urge the GNSO to reconsider its support to the proposed dialogue.
>     3
> 
>      ?Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>     Representing the interests and concerns of non-commercial Internet
>     users in domain name policy
>     Therefore, instead of pursuing a ?closed dialogue? with the GAC
>     where the scope and interlocutors are dictated by the ICANN Board,
>     the NCSG encourages the GNSO to seek community comments and
>     perspectives on how to proceed with Closed Generics throughout the
>     already established participatory mechanisms used by the ICANN
>     community (i.e. public comments and PDPs). We trust that a broader
>     conversation can serve as a good experience to collect the main
>     issues and concerns around this topic, as well as guidance to the
>     GNSO Council members responsible for leading this debate internally
>     - should it occur despite our deep concerns for the ICANN
>     Multistakeholder model and precedent. How else will this small team
>     - some with very long-held personal views on the subject - be bound
>     to a discussion on behalf of the entire GNSO Community??
> 
>     What was the board response? We should draft our response
>     considering that too.
> 
>     On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:17 PM farzaneh badii
>     <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>         If Tomslin has the time to do it I think he is better placed
>         because he was also involved with our objection to creating the
>         closed generic group.
> 
>         On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:14 PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com
>         <mailto:julf at julf.com>> wrote:
> 
>             On 12/03/2023 17:09, farzaneh badii wrote:
>              > I will do the response wording to the board and send it
>             to the mailing
>              > list. Ill do that tonight hopefully.
> 
>             Great! Thanks!!
> 
>              ? ? ? ? Julf
> 
>         -- 
>         Farzaneh
> 
>     -- 
>     Farzaneh
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-EC mailing list
>     NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> */Bruna Martins dos Santos
> /*
> 
> German Chancellor Fellow 21' (Bundeskanzler-Stipendiatin) | Alexander 
> von Humboldt Foundation <https://www.humboldt-foundation.de/>
> 
> Member | Coaliz?o Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
> Co-Coordinator?| Internet Governance Caucus <https://igcaucus.org/>
> 
> Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins>?// Skype: 
> bruna.martinsantos
> Email: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>


From Kathy at KathyKleiman.com  Mon Mar 13 15:07:15 2023
From: Kathy at KathyKleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 09:07:15 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvC3s1xZerRpZp96T=_Jhr_-BRWjFeEzWxDf9o6CrtDi0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
 <581ba0e1-c997-06be-a5fa-5d4f6721a028@julf.com>
 <CAN1qJvC+vHaXyQiwNG=pzh6dZMsAkuRBQ864=mTqNvUpNyfi=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <062b160a-d164-4016-a842-0f6ca574d9f4@julf.com>
 <CAN1qJvB61CPvW+Ur6QHXjMiYG=7v9rvbvvwdsRnUXyin-5xasA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN1qJvC3s1xZerRpZp96T=_Jhr_-BRWjFeEzWxDf9o6CrtDi0g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0d123029-d2f3-2869-709e-643ebc2c5ca8@KathyKleiman.com>

Farzi,

As David pointed out yesterday, most of the Board question appears to be 
directed at Small Team *on the GNSO Council.* Do you want to add 
anything about that?? Aren't we concerned about that?

As for the below, I'm not sure this is right. In narrow areas of 
intractability - where the Multistakeholder process truly cannot reach a 
decision (as was the case in Closed Generics) and you have to push 
forward with some resolution, what do you do?? In this case, the GAC has 
a lot of say since they wrote the Beijing GAC Advice 2013 that helped 
stopped Closed Generics and said the fateful (but rather ambiguous 
words) that "exclusive use gTLDs" (closed generics) need to "serve a 
public interest."? But what is that public interest?? It's the GAC who 
needs to explain their own advice, and like anything else in a policy 
process, that's complicated and hard.

In this case, Can't we give some credit to the Board? The last time 
(2015), they took unilateral action to ban Closed Generics, but this 
time, they are trying not to take unilateral action. If the Small Team 
concept can get the Community past a very narrowly-defined bottleneck, 
that may be a *good idea. *

The other is that we - as a Community - *have criticized GAC and ALAC 
**/for coming in at the very end of a policy process and providing major 
input. /*So now GAC/ALAC are being asked to come in earlier so that 
their concerns can be factored into the process before the Policy 
Development Process Working Group dissolves.? Isn't it a little unfair 
to condemn them for doing what we (as a Community) have asked them to do?

**Plus, I was wondering /from our Councilors /whether we should voice 
any concerns about GNSO Council Small Teams? */I worry here that this is 
a problem as it is a) a new Council method which seems to be operating 
without checks and balances and b) something that means NCSG has one 
(rather than six) people involved in a process - a serious imbalanced on 
these Council Small Teams and likely to lead to a real problem if these 
Council Small Teams grow in? number or do serious procedural business.? 
Shouldn't the Council be working as a Council (as the full Council has a 
balance and checks in its current structure)?
/*

Best, Kathy

On 3/12/2023 6:26 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> Here is the relevant part of our letter:
>
> ?3. Such ?facilitated dialogue? is giving GAC a more pronounced role 
> in policy making than its advisory role as mandated in ICANN Bylaw.
> GAC is welcome to engage in the policy development process in the 
> early stage as any other SO/ACs in order to ensure a policy outcome 
> that takes the multistakeholder perspective into account.
> That said, it is important and critical that we honour the distinct 
> responsibilities and roles between the GNSO as the policy-making body 
> and GAC as an advisory committee.
> And for that, it is critical that we make sure the multistakeholder 
> model is fair and balanced. Current practice of ACs participating in 
> consensus vote in PDPs while still enjoying the privilege of having 
> their advice as carrying some kind of different weight than the policy 
> recommendations is creating an asymmetrical power relation among AC 
> and SO. This uneven balance can negatively impact the legitimacy and 
> accountability of ICANN?s multistakeholder model.
> In light of the above mentioned, it remains unclear how a facilitated 
> dialogue as proposed can create any other outcome than what the SubPro 
> couldn?t have achieved with 5 years of hard work. On that note, the 
> Noncommercial Stakeholder Group would also like to note that this 
> ?facilitated dialogue? can create a dangerous precedent of re-opening 
> issues. The community should learn to accept the product of difficult 
> compromise. And we should all learn to draw the line of when policy 
> recommendations are made and resolved by Council/Board, they are 
> regarded and respected as Consensus Policy.
> The NCSG understands that the issue of Closed Generics remains without 
> an explicit GNSO recommendation as reported in the SubPro Final 
> Report. However, rather than inventing processes and setting a 
> dangerous precedent, we propose using a more balanced multi 
> stakeholder approach in seeking input on this topic. Therefore, we 
> urge the GNSO to reconsider its support to the proposed dialogue.
> 3
>
> ?Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> Representing the interests and concerns of non-commercial Internet 
> users in domain name policy
> Therefore, instead of pursuing a ?closed dialogue? with the GAC where 
> the scope and interlocutors are dictated by the ICANN Board, the NCSG 
> encourages the GNSO to seek community comments and perspectives on how 
> to proceed with Closed Generics throughout the already established 
> participatory mechanisms used by the ICANN community (i.e. public 
> comments and PDPs). We trust that a broader conversation can serve as 
> a good experience to collect the main issues and concerns around this 
> topic, as well as guidance to the GNSO Council members responsible for 
> leading this debate internally - should it occur despite our deep 
> concerns for the ICANN Multistakeholder model and precedent. How else 
> will this small team - some with very long-held personal views on the 
> subject - be bound to a discussion on behalf of the entire GNSO 
> Community??
>
> What was the board response? We should draft our response considering 
> that too.
>
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:17 PM farzaneh badii 
> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     If Tomslin has the time to do it I think he is better placed
>     because he was also involved with our objection to creating the
>     closed generic group.
>
>     On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:14 PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>
>     wrote:
>
>         On 12/03/2023 17:09, farzaneh badii wrote:
>         > I will do the response wording to the board and send it to
>         the mailing
>         > list. Ill do that tonight hopefully.
>
>         Great! Thanks!!
>
>         ? ? ? ? Julf
>
>     -- 
>     Farzaneh
>
> -- 
> Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230313/888d33a7/attachment.htm>

From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com  Mon Mar 13 15:11:37 2023
From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 08:11:37 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <0d123029-d2f3-2869-709e-643ebc2c5ca8@KathyKleiman.com>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
 <581ba0e1-c997-06be-a5fa-5d4f6721a028@julf.com>
 <CAN1qJvC+vHaXyQiwNG=pzh6dZMsAkuRBQ864=mTqNvUpNyfi=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <062b160a-d164-4016-a842-0f6ca574d9f4@julf.com>
 <CAN1qJvB61CPvW+Ur6QHXjMiYG=7v9rvbvvwdsRnUXyin-5xasA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN1qJvC3s1xZerRpZp96T=_Jhr_-BRWjFeEzWxDf9o6CrtDi0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <0d123029-d2f3-2869-709e-643ebc2c5ca8@KathyKleiman.com>
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvBZoMk2PieAdYoqwGEDbySUuBss_wec88BSVdzSS+JxAw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Kathy,
the Council small groups are not really "agile processes". They have to go
back to the council, they can't make decisions on their own. I think
Tomslin can answer this better.
That excerpt is from the letter you wrote with Tomslin and Manju when we
raised concerns about that group.
Anyhow I have drafted something which will send to the mailing list in a
minute and then we can discuss.

Farzaneh


On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 8:07?AM Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com>
wrote:

> Farzi,
>
> As David pointed out yesterday, most of the Board question appears to be
> directed at Small Team *on the GNSO Council.* Do you want to add anything
> about that?  Aren't we concerned about that?
>
> As for the below, I'm not sure this is right. In narrow areas of
> intractability - where the Multistakeholder process truly cannot reach a
> decision (as was the case in Closed Generics) and you have to push forward
> with some resolution, what do you do?  In this case, the GAC has a lot of
> say since they wrote the Beijing GAC Advice 2013 that helped stopped Closed
> Generics and said the fateful (but rather ambiguous words) that "exclusive
> use gTLDs" (closed generics) need to "serve a public interest."  But what
> is that public interest?  It's the GAC who needs to explain their own
> advice, and like anything else in a policy process, that's complicated and
> hard.
>
> In this case, Can't we give some credit to the Board? The last time
> (2015), they took unilateral action to ban Closed Generics, but this time,
> they are trying not to take unilateral action. If the Small Team concept
> can get the Community past a very narrowly-defined bottleneck, that may be
> a *good idea. *
>
> The other is that we - as a Community - *have criticized GAC and ALAC **for
> coming in at the very end of a policy process and providing major input. *So
> now GAC/ALAC are being asked to come in earlier so that their concerns can
> be factored into the process before the Policy Development Process Working
> Group dissolves.  Isn't it a little unfair to condemn them for doing what
> we (as a Community) have asked them to do?
>
> **Plus, I was wondering *from our Councilors *whether we should voice any
> concerns about GNSO Council Small Teams?
> *I worry here that this is a problem as it is a) a new Council method
> which seems to be operating without checks and balances and b) something
> that means NCSG has one (rather than six) people involved in a process - a
> serious imbalanced on these Council Small Teams and likely to lead to a
> real problem if these Council Small Teams grow in  number or do serious
> procedural business.  Shouldn't the Council be working as a Council (as the
> full Council has a balance and checks in its current structure)? *
>
> Best, Kathy
> On 3/12/2023 6:26 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
>
> Here is the relevant part of our letter:
>
> ?3. Such ?facilitated dialogue? is giving GAC a more pronounced role in
> policy making than its advisory role as mandated in ICANN Bylaw.
> GAC is welcome to engage in the policy development process in the early
> stage as any other SO/ACs in order to ensure a policy outcome that takes
> the multistakeholder perspective into account.
> That said, it is important and critical that we honour the distinct
> responsibilities and roles between the GNSO as the policy-making body and
> GAC as an advisory committee.
> And for that, it is critical that we make sure the multistakeholder model
> is fair and balanced. Current practice of ACs participating in consensus
> vote in PDPs while still enjoying the privilege of having their advice as
> carrying some kind of different weight than the policy recommendations is
> creating an asymmetrical power relation among AC and SO. This uneven
> balance can negatively impact the legitimacy and accountability of ICANN?s
> multistakeholder model.
> In light of the above mentioned, it remains unclear how a facilitated
> dialogue as proposed can create any other outcome than what the SubPro
> couldn?t have achieved with 5 years of hard work. On that note, the
> Noncommercial Stakeholder Group would also like to note that this
> ?facilitated dialogue? can create a dangerous precedent of re-opening
> issues. The community should learn to accept the product of difficult
> compromise. And we should all learn to draw the line of when policy
> recommendations are made and resolved by Council/Board, they are regarded
> and respected as Consensus Policy.
> The NCSG understands that the issue of Closed Generics remains without an
> explicit GNSO recommendation as reported in the SubPro Final Report.
> However, rather than inventing processes and setting a dangerous precedent,
> we propose using a more balanced multi stakeholder approach in seeking
> input on this topic. Therefore, we urge the GNSO to reconsider its support
> to the proposed dialogue.
> 3
>
>  Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> Representing the interests and concerns of non-commercial Internet users
> in domain name policy
> Therefore, instead of pursuing a ?closed dialogue? with the GAC where the
> scope and interlocutors are dictated by the ICANN Board, the NCSG
> encourages the GNSO to seek community comments and perspectives on how to
> proceed with Closed Generics throughout the already established
> participatory mechanisms used by the ICANN community (i.e. public comments
> and PDPs). We trust that a broader conversation can serve as a good
> experience to collect the main issues and concerns around this topic, as
> well as guidance to the GNSO Council members responsible for leading this
> debate internally - should it occur despite our deep concerns for the ICANN
> Multistakeholder model and precedent. How else will this small team - some
> with very long-held personal views on the subject - be bound to a
> discussion on behalf of the entire GNSO Community??
>
> What was the board response? We should draft our response considering that
> too.
>
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:17 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If Tomslin has the time to do it I think he is better placed because he
>> was also involved with our objection to creating the closed generic group.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:14 PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/03/2023 17:09, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>> > I will do the response wording to the board and send it to the mailing
>>> > list. Ill do that tonight hopefully.
>>>
>>> Great! Thanks!!
>>>
>>>         Julf
>>>
>>> --
>> Farzaneh
>>
> --
> Farzaneh
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230313/14348786/attachment.htm>

From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Mon Mar 13 16:40:26 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 09:40:26 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Questions to the board
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvBZoMk2PieAdYoqwGEDbySUuBss_wec88BSVdzSS+JxAw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7F64D053-A2D0-46AA-BDCA-A311BE206D5D@icann.org>
 <581ba0e1-c997-06be-a5fa-5d4f6721a028@julf.com>
 <CAN1qJvC+vHaXyQiwNG=pzh6dZMsAkuRBQ864=mTqNvUpNyfi=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <062b160a-d164-4016-a842-0f6ca574d9f4@julf.com>
 <CAN1qJvB61CPvW+Ur6QHXjMiYG=7v9rvbvvwdsRnUXyin-5xasA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN1qJvC3s1xZerRpZp96T=_Jhr_-BRWjFeEzWxDf9o6CrtDi0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <0d123029-d2f3-2869-709e-643ebc2c5ca8@KathyKleiman.com>
 <CAN1qJvBZoMk2PieAdYoqwGEDbySUuBss_wec88BSVdzSS+JxAw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeUTFD3nxJYs1pd-UXsfuxb2-ey90Nm7rgBm+JGUj04NrA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Farzi, Kathy, all,

Farzi, you're correct. The small team only works on and makes
recommendations to the full council about issues brought to the council.
Likenthe board small caucuses,  I think it is difficult to avoid small
teams in the Council. Oversight is in the form of the full council still
being able to choose to either accept or reject what a small team comes up
with. However, there are concerns about transparency of these small teams
to the larger community.

The concern about representation in the small groups are real too. However,
council would argue that the groups are open for any councilor to join, so
nothing stops all 6 NCSG councillors from joining any small team.

I also share Kathy's view but with a lot of caution, that we should support
the ACs early input to the policy process. Like our letter on the closed
generics team said, it is important and critical that we honour the
distinct responsibilities and roles between the GNSO and ACs.

Farzi, please do share your draft, I didn't get a chance to work on it.

Warmly,
Tomslin

On Mon, 13 Mar 2023, 08:22 farzaneh badii via NCSG-EC, <
ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

> Hi Kathy,
> the Council small groups are not really "agile processes". They have to go
> back to the council, they can't make decisions on their own. I think
> Tomslin can answer this better.
> That excerpt is from the letter you wrote with Tomslin and Manju when we
> raised concerns about that group.
> Anyhow I have drafted something which will send to the mailing list in a
> minute and then we can discuss.
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 8:07?AM Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Farzi,
>>
>> As David pointed out yesterday, most of the Board question appears to be
>> directed at Small Team *on the GNSO Council.* Do you want to add anything
>> about that?  Aren't we concerned about that?
>>
>> As for the below, I'm not sure this is right. In narrow areas of
>> intractability - where the Multistakeholder process truly cannot reach a
>> decision (as was the case in Closed Generics) and you have to push forward
>> with some resolution, what do you do?  In this case, the GAC has a lot of
>> say since they wrote the Beijing GAC Advice 2013 that helped stopped Closed
>> Generics and said the fateful (but rather ambiguous words) that "exclusive
>> use gTLDs" (closed generics) need to "serve a public interest."  But what
>> is that public interest?  It's the GAC who needs to explain their own
>> advice, and like anything else in a policy process, that's complicated and
>> hard.
>>
>> In this case, Can't we give some credit to the Board? The last time
>> (2015), they took unilateral action to ban Closed Generics, but this time,
>> they are trying not to take unilateral action. If the Small Team concept
>> can get the Community past a very narrowly-defined bottleneck, that may be
>> a *good idea. *
>>
>> The other is that we - as a Community - *have criticized GAC and ALAC **for
>> coming in at the very end of a policy process and providing major input. *So
>> now GAC/ALAC are being asked to come in earlier so that their concerns can
>> be factored into the process before the Policy Development Process Working
>> Group dissolves.  Isn't it a little unfair to condemn them for doing what
>> we (as a Community) have asked them to do?
>>
>> **Plus, I was wondering *from our Councilors *whether we should voice
>> any concerns about GNSO Council Small Teams?
>> *I worry here that this is a problem as it is a) a new Council method
>> which seems to be operating without checks and balances and b) something
>> that means NCSG has one (rather than six) people involved in a process - a
>> serious imbalanced on these Council Small Teams and likely to lead to a
>> real problem if these Council Small Teams grow in  number or do serious
>> procedural business.  Shouldn't the Council be working as a Council (as the
>> full Council has a balance and checks in its current structure)? *
>>
>> Best, Kathy
>> On 3/12/2023 6:26 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>
>> Here is the relevant part of our letter:
>>
>> ?3. Such ?facilitated dialogue? is giving GAC a more pronounced role in
>> policy making than its advisory role as mandated in ICANN Bylaw.
>> GAC is welcome to engage in the policy development process in the early
>> stage as any other SO/ACs in order to ensure a policy outcome that takes
>> the multistakeholder perspective into account.
>> That said, it is important and critical that we honour the distinct
>> responsibilities and roles between the GNSO as the policy-making body and
>> GAC as an advisory committee.
>> And for that, it is critical that we make sure the multistakeholder model
>> is fair and balanced. Current practice of ACs participating in consensus
>> vote in PDPs while still enjoying the privilege of having their advice as
>> carrying some kind of different weight than the policy recommendations is
>> creating an asymmetrical power relation among AC and SO. This uneven
>> balance can negatively impact the legitimacy and accountability of ICANN?s
>> multistakeholder model.
>> In light of the above mentioned, it remains unclear how a facilitated
>> dialogue as proposed can create any other outcome than what the SubPro
>> couldn?t have achieved with 5 years of hard work. On that note, the
>> Noncommercial Stakeholder Group would also like to note that this
>> ?facilitated dialogue? can create a dangerous precedent of re-opening
>> issues. The community should learn to accept the product of difficult
>> compromise. And we should all learn to draw the line of when policy
>> recommendations are made and resolved by Council/Board, they are regarded
>> and respected as Consensus Policy.
>> The NCSG understands that the issue of Closed Generics remains without an
>> explicit GNSO recommendation as reported in the SubPro Final Report.
>> However, rather than inventing processes and setting a dangerous precedent,
>> we propose using a more balanced multi stakeholder approach in seeking
>> input on this topic. Therefore, we urge the GNSO to reconsider its support
>> to the proposed dialogue.
>> 3
>>
>>  Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>> Representing the interests and concerns of non-commercial Internet users
>> in domain name policy
>> Therefore, instead of pursuing a ?closed dialogue? with the GAC where the
>> scope and interlocutors are dictated by the ICANN Board, the NCSG
>> encourages the GNSO to seek community comments and perspectives on how to
>> proceed with Closed Generics throughout the already established
>> participatory mechanisms used by the ICANN community (i.e. public comments
>> and PDPs). We trust that a broader conversation can serve as a good
>> experience to collect the main issues and concerns around this topic, as
>> well as guidance to the GNSO Council members responsible for leading this
>> debate internally - should it occur despite our deep concerns for the ICANN
>> Multistakeholder model and precedent. How else will this small team - some
>> with very long-held personal views on the subject - be bound to a
>> discussion on behalf of the entire GNSO Community??
>>
>> What was the board response? We should draft our response considering
>> that too.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:17 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If Tomslin has the time to do it I think he is better placed because he
>>> was also involved with our objection to creating the closed generic group.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:14 PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/03/2023 17:09, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>>> > I will do the response wording to the board and send it to the
>>>> mailing
>>>> > list. Ill do that tonight hopefully.
>>>>
>>>> Great! Thanks!!
>>>>
>>>>         Julf
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230313/7dde853a/attachment.htm>

From julf at julf.com  Tue Mar 14 14:46:55 2023
From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 07:46:55 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCSG/NPOC/NCUC and ICANN org GSE VPs
In-Reply-To: <EDB6298A-C3DF-41E7-8D42-A232FA2F968A@icann.org>
References: <EDB6298A-C3DF-41E7-8D42-A232FA2F968A@icann.org>
Message-ID: <4b4b9f80-9af2-23c3-6c2c-07c09307c9f4@julf.com>

Just a reminder about Wednesday afternoon.

	Julf

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	NCSG/NPOC/NCUC and ICANN org GSE VPs
Date: 	Mon, 27 Feb 2023 17:55:14 +0000
From: 	Adam Peake <adam.peake at icann.org>
To: 	Johan Helsingius <julf at JULF.COM>, Benjamin Akinmoyeje 
<benakin at gmail.com>, Raoul Plommer <plommer at GMAIL.COM>
CC: 	Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>, Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele 
<muyiwacaleb at gmail.com>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org>



Hi Julf, Raoul, Benjamin;

NCSG, NPOC and NCUC have a session during ICANN76 with the GSE regional 
vice presidents:? Wednesday, March 15, 16:30 - 17:30 (Local time) 
https://icann76.sched.com/event/1J2Jr/gnso-noncommercial-outreach-and-engagement 
<https://icann76.sched.com/event/1J2Jr/gnso-noncommercial-outreach-and-engagement> 


Intent is to start a relationship coordinating outreach and engagement 
activities at both regional and globallevels between GSE and your 
groups.? As it will be our first joint meeting Andrea and I suggest the 
following draft agenda(comments of course very welcome):

1. Introductions - roundtable

2. Discussion of each groups' strategic outreach plans

3. VP regional priorities & plans

4. Q&A

  From the GSE side, each VP will introduce their regional priorities. I 
hope you can do the same, if no regional priorities for engagement then 
global ? CROP strategy for example.? Could you discuss with your members 
please, particularly to have you exec teams join the meeting. ?I hope 
exec committee members not travelling to Cancun will be able to join 
online (timezone permitting). Perhaps you could you also invite the NCSG 
GNSO council members?? I am sorry the meeting clashes with the DNS Women 
session, but otherwise looks like good timing.

We only have an hour, but can follow-up online after ICANN76, and 
perhaps have another face to face meeting during the meeting in 
Washington (ICANN77) in June.

Best,

Adam



From julf at julf.com  Tue Mar 14 17:38:16 2023
From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 10:38:16 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: FW: IPC Reception Wednesday 6:30-8:30 Canopy Hotel
 Cancun
In-Reply-To: <BL1PR12MB5030E139EE918A69FD310C5ED3BE9@BL1PR12MB5030.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BL1PR12MB5030E139EE918A69FD310C5ED3BE9@BL1PR12MB5030.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <2cc570d7-a406-43ea-acfe-8d5982d8f8f6@julf.com>

FYI...

	Julf



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	FW: IPC Reception Wednesday 6:30-8:30 Canopy Hotel Cancun
Date: 	Tue, 14 Mar 2023 14:49:05 +0000
From: 	Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>
To: 	Johan Helsingius <julf.helsingius at gmail.com>, julf at julf.com 
<julf at Julf.com>
CC: 	ipc-leadership at icann.org <ipc-leadership at icann.org>



*Hi Julf,***

**

*In the spirit of bridgebuilding you and the NCSG excomm are invited to 
our IPC reception.?? We have limited space so we cannot invite the 
entire NCSG but we hope that you and members of your leadership team can 
make it.? ??Please let me know.? --? Lori***

**


A blue sign with white text Description automatically generated with 
medium confidence

**

**

**

*You are cordially invited to the IPC Member Appreciation Cocktail.? 
After braving economy flights, taxi/Uber wars and deciphering the ICANN 
schedule, this reception is the least we could do to say thank you.?? 
Please note that, unlike prior events, capacity is limited to 50 people 
so RSVPs are important. ?We will have outdoor and indoor space so you 
can escape into the AC as needed.? Wine, beer, soft drinks and 
appetizers are courtesy of the IPC.? Top shelf orders are at your 
discretion and expense.? There is also music (but not too loud so we can 
socialize).? Presented by your IPC Leadership Team: ?Lori Schulman, 
Brian King, Jan Janssen, Damon Ashcraft, John McElwaine and Susan 
Payne.? See you there!*

**

****

**

*Who: ?IPC Members*

**

*What: Appreciation Cocktail*

**

*Where:? Canopy Cancun La Isla (in the Hotel Zone)*

**

*Blvd. Kukulcan Km 12.5***

*Cancun, Quintana Roo 77500***

*Mexico***

**

*When: Wednesday, March 16, 6:30 ? 8:30 pm*

**

*Why: Because we like you.*

**



From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Tue Mar 14 22:50:43 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 15:50:43 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Fwd: NCSG/NPOC/NCUC and ICANN org GSE VPs
In-Reply-To: <4b4b9f80-9af2-23c3-6c2c-07c09307c9f4@julf.com>
References: <EDB6298A-C3DF-41E7-8D42-A232FA2F968A@icann.org>
 <4b4b9f80-9af2-23c3-6c2c-07c09307c9f4@julf.com>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeV+NAyTgGHC_jF1EnUPNrzJL7o3ws-O4pZePkrVzeNsnQ@mail.gmail.com>

Could staff help with a calendar invite? This will help a lot so that we
don't forget.



On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 at 07:47, Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC <
ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

> Just a reminder about Wednesday afternoon.
>
>         Julf
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:        NCSG/NPOC/NCUC and ICANN org GSE VPs
> Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2023 17:55:14 +0000
> From:   Adam Peake <adam.peake at icann.org>
> To:     Johan Helsingius <julf at JULF.COM>, Benjamin Akinmoyeje
> <benakin at gmail.com>, Raoul Plommer <plommer at GMAIL.COM>
> CC:     Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>, Caleb Olumuyiwa
> Ogundele
> <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org>
>
>
>
> Hi Julf, Raoul, Benjamin;
>
> NCSG, NPOC and NCUC have a session during ICANN76 with the GSE regional
> vice presidents:  Wednesday, March 15, 16:30 - 17:30 (Local time)
>
> https://icann76.sched.com/event/1J2Jr/gnso-noncommercial-outreach-and-engagement
> <
> https://icann76.sched.com/event/1J2Jr/gnso-noncommercial-outreach-and-engagement>
>
>
>
> Intent is to start a relationship coordinating outreach and engagement
> activities at both regional and globallevels between GSE and your
> groups.  As it will be our first joint meeting Andrea and I suggest the
> following draft agenda(comments of course very welcome):
>
> 1. Introductions - roundtable
>
> 2. Discussion of each groups' strategic outreach plans
>
> 3. VP regional priorities & plans
>
> 4. Q&A
>
>   From the GSE side, each VP will introduce their regional priorities. I
> hope you can do the same, if no regional priorities for engagement then
> global ? CROP strategy for example.  Could you discuss with your members
> please, particularly to have you exec teams join the meeting.  I hope
> exec committee members not travelling to Cancun will be able to join
> online (timezone permitting). Perhaps you could you also invite the NCSG
> GNSO council members?  I am sorry the meeting clashes with the DNS Women
> session, but otherwise looks like good timing.
>
> We only have an hour, but can follow-up online after ICANN76, and
> perhaps have another face to face meeting during the meeting in
> Washington (ICANN77) in June.
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230314/ef80c268/attachment.htm>

From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Tue Mar 14 22:52:11 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 15:52:11 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Fwd: NCSG/NPOC/NCUC and ICANN org GSE VPs
In-Reply-To: <CAM8DdeV+NAyTgGHC_jF1EnUPNrzJL7o3ws-O4pZePkrVzeNsnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EDB6298A-C3DF-41E7-8D42-A232FA2F968A@icann.org>
 <4b4b9f80-9af2-23c3-6c2c-07c09307c9f4@julf.com>
 <CAM8DdeV+NAyTgGHC_jF1EnUPNrzJL7o3ws-O4pZePkrVzeNsnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeVHHx_dWCLK6GdA92d0E5nTY3Z5Fh1Bc-V1xrJOF0KC_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Please ignore my previous email. I assumed the meeting is not on Sched.



On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 at 15:50, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Could staff help with a calendar invite? This will help a lot so that we
> don't forget.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 at 07:47, Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC <
> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>
>> Just a reminder about Wednesday afternoon.
>>
>>         Julf
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:        NCSG/NPOC/NCUC and ICANN org GSE VPs
>> Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2023 17:55:14 +0000
>> From:   Adam Peake <adam.peake at icann.org>
>> To:     Johan Helsingius <julf at JULF.COM>, Benjamin Akinmoyeje
>> <benakin at gmail.com>, Raoul Plommer <plommer at GMAIL.COM>
>> CC:     Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>, Caleb Olumuyiwa
>> Ogundele
>> <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Julf, Raoul, Benjamin;
>>
>> NCSG, NPOC and NCUC have a session during ICANN76 with the GSE regional
>> vice presidents:  Wednesday, March 15, 16:30 - 17:30 (Local time)
>>
>> https://icann76.sched.com/event/1J2Jr/gnso-noncommercial-outreach-and-engagement
>> <
>> https://icann76.sched.com/event/1J2Jr/gnso-noncommercial-outreach-and-engagement>
>>
>>
>>
>> Intent is to start a relationship coordinating outreach and engagement
>> activities at both regional and globallevels between GSE and your
>> groups.  As it will be our first joint meeting Andrea and I suggest the
>> following draft agenda(comments of course very welcome):
>>
>> 1. Introductions - roundtable
>>
>> 2. Discussion of each groups' strategic outreach plans
>>
>> 3. VP regional priorities & plans
>>
>> 4. Q&A
>>
>>   From the GSE side, each VP will introduce their regional priorities. I
>> hope you can do the same, if no regional priorities for engagement then
>> global ? CROP strategy for example.  Could you discuss with your members
>> please, particularly to have you exec teams join the meeting.  I hope
>> exec committee members not travelling to Cancun will be able to join
>> online (timezone permitting). Perhaps you could you also invite the NCSG
>> GNSO council members?  I am sorry the meeting clashes with the DNS Women
>> session, but otherwise looks like good timing.
>>
>> We only have an hour, but can follow-up online after ICANN76, and
>> perhaps have another face to face meeting during the meeting in
>> Washington (ICANN77) in June.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230314/7d6091df/attachment.htm>

From andrea.glandon at icann.org  Wed Mar 15 00:27:02 2023
From: andrea.glandon at icann.org (Andrea Glandon)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 22:27:02 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Board Seat 14 Interview-Mark Datysgeld
Message-ID: <e25c543b7a6c4b8fad641e535fe82a46@icann.org>

Please join the NCSG Executive Committee and Policy Committee for an interview for Board Seat 14 on Wednesday, 22 March 2023 at 14:00 UTC.

https://icann.zoom.us/j/91409019340?pwd=YXNZMUZoSWR6Zk9hdnhsdDU5aFF3QT09


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230314/95a7afee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 1801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230314/95a7afee/attachment.ics>

From andrea.glandon at icann.org  Wed Mar 15 16:17:12 2023
From: andrea.glandon at icann.org (Andrea Glandon)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 14:17:12 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board Seat 14 Selection Process Clarification
Message-ID: <4F45A06C-363D-4B84-9FA0-0A01F15BB120@icann.org>

Hello NCSG EC & PC,

Please see below for some clarification regarding the Board Seat 14 selection process.

We understand that some community members have questions about the Non-Contracted Parties House selection process for Board Seat 14. ICANN staff has put together the following points that we hope are helpful to the NCPH as the CSG and NCSG go through the process for nominating a Director for Board Seat 14, with effect from the conclusion of the Annual General Meeting in October 2023.

On the implications if the NCPH does not nominate a Director for Board Seat 14 by the six-month deadline to give the Empowered Community Administration notice of its nomination:

  *   Under Section 7.8(b) of the Bylaws: ?Each Director holding any of Seats 1 through 15 ? shall hold office for a term that lasts until the next term for that Seat commences and until a successor has been designated and qualified ? ? (emphasis added). Staff notes that it is important for accountability that the community conducts its governance duties and carries out its responsibilities in a timely way.

On whether there are restrictions regarding potential candidates who may have backgrounds or other connections with Contracted Parties:

  *   Unless the appointing organization has additional specific requirements or limitations, the expected qualifications and criteria regarding Directors are stated in Sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the Bylaws.
  *   ICANN Board Directors are required to comply with conflict of interest processes as outlined in Section 7.6 of the Bylaws, including a periodic (not less than annual) statement disclosing ?all business and other affiliations that relate in any way to the business and other affiliations of ICANN?.

On the question of geographic diversity for GNSO-appointed Directors (i.e. Board Seats 13 & 14):

  *   Under Section 7.2(c) of the Bylaws: ?The Supporting Organizations shall ensure that, at any given time, no two Directors nominated by a Supporting Organization are citizens from the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region? (emphasis added). Currently, the Director appointed to Board Seat 13 is from North America. Thus, the appointee to Board Seat 14 whose term is to commence at the end of the AGM this year cannot also be from North America. I
  *   Staff notes that this requirement should be viewed in the context of the 6-month notification requirement for the Empowered Community Administration to designate Directors because of the role of the Nominating Committee in balancing the geographical diversity of the Board.

Thank you.

Andrea Glandon
Policy Operations Coordinator
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Skype ID:  acglandon76



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230315/3aa033da/attachment.htm>

From julf at julf.com  Wed Mar 15 16:40:38 2023
From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:40:38 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board Seat 14 Selection Process Clarification
In-Reply-To: <4F45A06C-363D-4B84-9FA0-0A01F15BB120@icann.org>
References: <4F45A06C-363D-4B84-9FA0-0A01F15BB120@icann.org>
Message-ID: <93928816-e8db-3e7f-2a0c-2e49c999d746@julf.com>

Thank you Andrea! Very interesting!

	Julf


On 15/03/2023 09:17, Andrea Glandon wrote:
> Hello NCSG EC & PC,
> 
> Please see below for some clarification regarding the Board Seat 14 
> selection process.
> 
> We understand that some community members have questions about the 
> Non-Contracted Parties House selection process for Board Seat 14. ICANN 
> staff has put together the following points that we hope are helpful to 
> the NCPH as the CSG and NCSG go through the process for nominating a 
> Director for Board Seat 14, with effect from the conclusion of the 
> Annual General Meeting in October 2023.
> 
> _On the implications if the NCPH does not nominate a Director for Board 
> Seat 14 by the six-month deadline to give the Empowered Community 
> Administration notice of its nomination_:
> 
>   * Under Section 7.8(b) of the Bylaws: ?Each Director holding any of
>     Seats 1 through 15 ? shall hold office for a term that lasts until
>     the next term for that Seat commences */and until a successor has
>     been designated/*?and qualified?? ? (emphasis added). Staff notes
>     that it is important for accountability that the community conducts
>     its governance duties and carries out its responsibilities in a
>     timely way.
> 
> _On whether there are restrictions regarding potential candidates who 
> may have backgrounds or other connections with Contracted Parties_:
> 
>   * Unless the appointing organization has additional specific
>     requirements or limitations, the expected qualifications and
>     criteria regarding Directors are stated in Sections 7.3 and 7.4 of
>     the Bylaws.
>   * ICANN Board Directors are required to comply with conflict of
>     interest processes as outlined in Section 7.6 of the Bylaws,
>     including a periodic (not less than annual) statement disclosing
>     ?all business and other affiliations that relate in any way to the
>     business and other affiliations of ICANN?.
> 
> _On the question of geographic diversity for GNSO-appointed Directors 
> (i.e. Board Seats 13 & 14): _
> 
>   * Under Section 7.2(c) of the Bylaws: ?The?Supporting
>     Organizations?shall ensure that, at any given time, *no two
>     Directors nominated by a?Supporting Organization?are citizens from
>     the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic
>     Region*? (emphasis added). Currently, the Director appointed to
>     Board Seat 13 is from North America. Thus, the appointee to Board
>     Seat 14 whose term is to commence at the end of the AGM this year
>     cannot also be from North America. I
>   * Staff notes that this requirement should be viewed in the context of
>     the 6-month notification requirement for the Empowered Community
>     Administration to designate Directors because of the role of the
>     Nominating Committee in balancing the geographical diversity of the
>     Board.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> *Andrea Glandon*
> 
> Policy Operations Coordinator
> 
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> 
> *Skype ID:*? acglandon76
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc


From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Wed Mar 15 17:14:54 2023
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie E Perrin)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 11:14:54 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Applications Open: Nonprofit & Public Interest Orgs
In-Reply-To: <0.1.1DC.F2A.1D9574B3538554C.0@drone053.ral.icpbounce.com>
References: <0.1.1DC.F2A.1D9574B3538554C.0@drone053.ral.icpbounce.com>
Message-ID: <27e7bfb8-dc2b-2a92-d4c0-ffc133186a4e@mail.utoronto.ca>


This might be of interest to some of our US based members.
Stephanie Perrin
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Applications Open: Nonprofit & Public Interest Orgs
Date: 	Wed, 15 Mar 2023 10:34:11 -0400
From: 	Betsy Cooper, Aspen Institute 
<aspentechpolicyhub at aspeninstitute.org>
Reply-To: 	aspentechpolicyhub at aspeninstitute.org
To: 	stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca




	
You don't often get email from aspentechpolicyhub at aspeninstitute.org. 
Learn why this is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
	

The Tech Policy Hub?s new fellowship
	
The Aspen Tech Policy Hub's logo. Lines resembling a circuit board from 
the letter H inside a hexagon. Beside it reads, "Aspen Tech Policy Hub." 
Below that is the Aspen Institute leaf and name.

			
Aspen Digital's logo. Lines resembling a circuit board from the letters 
A-D. Beside them read, "Aspen Digital." Below that is the Aspen 
Institute leaf and name.

	

	

*/Applications Open Now/*

*Nonprofit and Public Interest Fellowship*

A transparent photo of two people in lab coats looking at a machine 
together. Beside the photo reads, "Nonprofit and Public Interest Policy 
Training Fellowship: The Aspen Tech Policy Hub is launching our 
Nonprofit and Public Interest Fellowship to support public interest 
organizations in achieving policy impact. July 10-28, 2023. Apply now!"

*/July 10-28, 2023/*

The Aspen Tech Policy Hub 
<https://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=71006102&msgid=992370&act=FFA5&c=337460&pid=3835357&destination=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aspentechpolicyhub.org%2F&cf=113015&v=54bfc2699b6268cdcab9ec08dcc35bd2e0e9badc59e3bfe2f603d9cdc66b8696>has 
launched a Nonprofit and Public Interest Fellowship 
<https://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=71006102&msgid=992370&act=FFA5&c=337460&pid=3835357&destination=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aspentechpolicyhub.org%2Fnonprofit-and-public-interest-fellowship%2F&cf=113015&v=1af26fc52fca72df0354e657c5fcef59063c34211a33c2853712a7feb20b9076>to 
support public interest and nonprofit organizations in achieving policy 
impact.

Learn More and Apply 
<https://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=71006102&msgid=992370&act=FFA5&c=337460&pid=3835357&destination=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aspentechpolicyhub.org%2Fnonprofit-and-public-interest-fellowship%2F&cf=113015&v=1af26fc52fca72df0354e657c5fcef59063c34211a33c2853712a7feb20b9076> 


Selected organizations will be paid a $6,000 honoraria to defray costs 
of participating in the in-person fellowship. Out of town participants 
will also receive a small stipend to cover travel to the Bay Area.

*/What/*

The Hub will host a full-time, 3-week bootcamp in the Bay Area. Leaders 
representing their organizations will participate as fellows and learn 
how to have policy impact. Fellows will have the option to take 
advantage of Hub staff support by working part-time and remotely on a 
final project from July 28 to September 15, 2023.

*/Who/*

The Hub is seeking US-based organizations working in the public interest 
? for instance, nonprofits, public benefit corporations, unions, or 
university centers ? that want to build a capacity to change policy.

To be eligible, an organization (or the unit within the organization 
that is applying) must not currently employ any policy or government 
relations staff or lobbyists and must have at least one leader available 
to join us as a fellow for 3 weeks in the Bay Area.

Organizations focused on science, technology, cybersecurity, or a 
related field will be prioritized. Organizations that work directly with 
communities who face marginalization and/or that seek to tackle 
disparities around race and ethnicity, age, gender identity, sexual 
orientation, disability, and other aspects of diversity will also be 
prioritized.

*/When/*

*/Required bootcamp (in-person)/*

July 10-28, 2023 (tentative)

*/Optional final project (remote)/*

July 31-September 15, 2023 (tentative)

Learn More and Apply 
<https://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=71006102&msgid=992370&act=FFA5&c=337460&pid=3835357&destination=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aspentechpolicyhub.org%2Fnonprofit-and-public-interest-fellowship%2F&cf=113015&v=1af26fc52fca72df0354e657c5fcef59063c34211a33c2853712a7feb20b9076> 


Hub staff will host informational webinars for prospective applicants on 
March 23, April 5, and April 11, 2023.

Register for an Information Session 
<https://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=71006102&msgid=992370&act=FFA5&c=337460&pid=3835357&destination=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aspentechpolicyhub.org%2Fannouncing-nonprofit-and-public-interest-fellowship-recruitment-webinars%2F&cf=113015&v=f06b537bda7327a5c2b092d930d534740c57dbdb8815efb316029d05b3a88d13> 


Twitter 
<https://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=71006102&msgid=992370&act=FFA5&c=337460&pid=3835357&destination=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.twitter.com%2Faspendigital&cf=113015&v=827ae2a656562159a4698e2ac09ddf00ca900687260a5c03058f075128184de5>

/Aspen Digital/ 
<https://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=71006102&msgid=992370&act=FFA5&c=337460&pid=3835357&destination=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aspeninstitute.org%2Fprograms%2Faspendigital%2F&cf=113015&v=37124bfbfa8d99b765ffa15787d122abcc1011c8da04ef8825a83de1c722c248>///empowers 
policy-makers, civic organizations, companies, and the public to be 
responsible stewards of technology and media in the service of an 
informed, just, and equitable world. A program of the Aspen Institute, 
we shine a light on urgent global issues across cybersecurity, the 
information ecosystem, emerging technology, the industry talent 
pipeline, tech and communications policy, and innovation. We then turn 
ideas to action and develop human solutions to these digital challenges./

	

Unsubscribe 
<https://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.php?r=71006102&l=113015&s=FFA5&m=992370&c=337460>
This message was sent to *stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca* from 
*aspentechpolicyhub at aspeninstitute.org*

Betsy Cooper, Aspen Institute
Aspen Institute
2300 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230315/ab301da2/attachment.htm>

From julf at julf.com  Wed Mar 15 21:36:28 2023
From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 14:36:28 -0500
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meeting with part of the board this morning
Message-ID: <72a3da0f-ac0e-8a4d-4482-48fe1b154747@julf.com>

So I, Manju and Benjamin met with Matthew, Avri, Becky and Sarah for an
informal breakfast meeting (without breakfast).

It was a very constructive discussion. The board members seemed
surprised to learn that 2 out of the last 3 nomcom appointees
to the GNSO were from IPC, but noted that it is hard for the
board to interfere with that, and that we need to take it up
with the NomCom.

The board understands that we are spreading ourselves extremely
thin with all the (E)PDPs, small groups and whatsoevers going
on and starting up, but made clear that slowing down is not an
option. We raised the relitigation issue, and they pointed out
that one reason is that there are too many gray areas and
fuzzy compromises in the WG outcomes. They discussed having
the board liaisons call out those issues, but so should we.

We discussed the policy transition program, and the board members
encouraged us to share our experiences in the Public Forum.

In general they encouraged us to speak up more, as they often
wonder "what does civil society think about this?". No complicated
treatises or formal papers needed, just single-paragraph comments
as they can then ask clarifying questions.

Avri also made the point that they try to come and sit in on
meetings, but won't volunteer opinions unless asked - but them
being there should be seen as an invitation to ask questions.
They might not be able to answer on behalf of the board, but
can at least tell what they would argue in a board context.

Manju and Benjamin, anything relevant I have forgotten?

	Julf


From benakin at gmail.com  Thu Mar 16 15:06:49 2023
From: benakin at gmail.com (Benjamin Akinmoyeje)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 15:06:49 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Meeting with part of the board this morning
In-Reply-To: <72a3da0f-ac0e-8a4d-4482-48fe1b154747@julf.com>
References: <72a3da0f-ac0e-8a4d-4482-48fe1b154747@julf.com>
Message-ID: <CAJR4JuECOm7JxuWrPnUWbY4=LQX=PO4SBCY78xiMTJx1UgY-pw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Julf,

Thank you Julf, I believe you touched on the main points of the discussion.

Kind regards,
Benjamin


On Wednesday, March 15, 2023, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:

> So I, Manju and Benjamin met with Matthew, Avri, Becky and Sarah for an
> informal breakfast meeting (without breakfast).
>
> It was a very constructive discussion. The board members seemed
> surprised to learn that 2 out of the last 3 nomcom appointees
> to the GNSO were from IPC, but noted that it is hard for the
> board to interfere with that, and that we need to take it up
> with the NomCom.
>
> The board understands that we are spreading ourselves extremely
> thin with all the (E)PDPs, small groups and whatsoevers going
> on and starting up, but made clear that slowing down is not an
> option. We raised the relitigation issue, and they pointed out
> that one reason is that there are too many gray areas and
> fuzzy compromises in the WG outcomes. They discussed having
> the board liaisons call out those issues, but so should we.
>
> We discussed the policy transition program, and the board members
> encouraged us to share our experiences in the Public Forum.
>
> In general they encouraged us to speak up more, as they often
> wonder "what does civil society think about this?". No complicated
> treatises or formal papers needed, just single-paragraph comments
> as they can then ask clarifying questions.
>
> Avri also made the point that they try to come and sit in on
> meetings, but won't volunteer opinions unless asked - but them
> being there should be seen as an invitation to ask questions.
> They might not be able to answer on behalf of the board, but
> can at least tell what they would argue in a board context.
>
> Manju and Benjamin, anything relevant I have forgotten?
>
>         Julf
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230316/553f5a10/attachment.htm>

From compsoftnet at gmail.com  Wed Mar 22 20:07:36 2023
From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 19:07:36 +0100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] IANA IFR
Message-ID: <CAGK4d0_mHQj_Z8k8mSEspaZfD45d4geoZX6_9cDSE+4+5NcyuQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi PC,

I don't know if you have seen the following proposed changes with regards
IANA IFR.

Do NCSG have any concerns on the four types of changes below

   1. The removal of a duplication at Article 18, Section 12(a), as
   identified by the first IANA Naming Function Review (IFR) Team in its Final
   Report.
   2. Updates to the composition of IFR teams to address composition issues
   identified by the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) in 2019.
   3. Clarification of ambiguities on the IFR processes identified through
   the first IFR after the IANA Stewardship Transition.
   4. Updates to the composition of the team exploring an IANA Naming
   Function Separation Process (Article 19), to conform to composition updates
   for the IFRs within Article 18.

Link for more information:
https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/iana-naming-function-review-bylaws-changes-18-04-2023
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230322/117b5700/attachment.htm>

From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Thu Mar 23 00:23:29 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 09:23:29 +1100
Subject: [NCSG-PC] IANA IFR
In-Reply-To: <CAGK4d0_mHQj_Z8k8mSEspaZfD45d4geoZX6_9cDSE+4+5NcyuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGK4d0_mHQj_Z8k8mSEspaZfD45d4geoZX6_9cDSE+4+5NcyuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeVN4NpTWkOZSnQrhje9BJo6v1YdigiMsoE5Njm27N=azg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Peter for bringing this up. I completely missed it with the Canc?n
meeting and all. I will send to the members list for a call for comments.

For a bit of background for the benefit of all here, I was the Co-chair of
the joint ccNSO-gNSO IFR team that proposed some of these Bylaw changes. So
if anyone has questions,  I am happy to answer them.

Warmly,
Tomslin

On Thu, 23 Mar 2023, 05:07 Akinremi Peter Taiwo, <compsoftnet at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi PC,
>
> I don't know if you have seen the following proposed changes with regards
> IANA IFR.
>
> Do NCSG have any concerns on the four types of changes below
>
>    1. The removal of a duplication at Article 18, Section 12(a), as
>    identified by the first IANA Naming Function Review (IFR) Team in its Final
>    Report.
>    2. Updates to the composition of IFR teams to address composition
>    issues identified by the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) in 2019.
>    3. Clarification of ambiguities on the IFR processes identified
>    through the first IFR after the IANA Stewardship Transition.
>    4. Updates to the composition of the team exploring an IANA Naming
>    Function Separation Process (Article 19), to conform to composition updates
>    for the IFRs within Article 18.
>
> Link for more information:
> https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/iana-naming-function-review-bylaws-changes-18-04-2023
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230323/cd47b31f/attachment.htm>

From julf at Julf.com  Mon Mar 27 16:57:21 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 15:57:21 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: REMINDER-Deadline approaching / Request for Early
 Input - GNSO Transfer Policy Review PDP
In-Reply-To: <E39E71D2-19D3-4D67-8B92-6CDED687EEBB@icann.org>
References: <E39E71D2-19D3-4D67-8B92-6CDED687EEBB@icann.org>
Message-ID: <6ff47bc0-c22d-b57a-22a9-8144e37199f5@Julf.com>




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	REMINDER-Deadline approaching / Request for Early Input - GNSO 
Transfer Policy Review PDP
Date: 	Mon, 27 Mar 2023 13:48:10 +0000
From: 	Julie Bisland <julie.bisland at icann.org>
To: 	julf at julf.com <julf at julf.com>, Andrea Glandon 
<andrea.glandon at icann.org>
CC: 	Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>, gnso-secs at icann.org 
<gnso-secs at icann.org>, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>, 
Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb at icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>



Dear Julf,

Please find attached a request from the GNSO Transfer Policy Review 
Policy Development Process Working Group forinputfrom your group on 
Group 2 topics within the PDP?s charter. Responses are requested by 4 
April 2023 and may be sent tognso-secs at icann.org 
<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>.

Kind regards,

Devan

*Devan Reed*
Policy Development Support - TEMP
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

www.icann.org 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=5Q2VHFiILluU8bvJHD3YjtNb84SyquCx2HSNHYn1ybs&m=X5iO0FCI3T2FxZ0KhKQ1iY0GhPzLH7XaiK8LfLcHSPY&s=grheVbJRc-hQqrXXGzMqUK3Htr0S5Z74HFOhmrag-Js&e=>

cidimage001.png at 01D4E0C6.320C4B80
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Transfer Policy Review PDP - Request for Early Input on Group 2 Topics .pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 184982 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230327/f868246b/attachment.pdf>

From PolicyCalendar at icann.org  Tue Mar 28 23:44:07 2023
From: PolicyCalendar at icann.org (ICANN Policy Calendar)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 20:44:07 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Policy Call | 22 May at 11:30 UTC
Message-ID: <aa005f2d81ce4771ad7f1bf98c998dd8@icann.org>

Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 22 May at 11:30 UTC.  Additional time zone support here<https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=NCSG+Policy+Call&iso=20230522T1130&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30>.

Join Zoom Meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/j/98878189584?pwd=ZVpkSVVuaXVqeGRMelNEWW1LMkxQUT09
Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584
Passcode: i!y7.qx&#43;11

WANT US TO CALL YOU? Please send dial-out request and apologies to brenda.brewer at icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>.

One tap mobile
&#43;16699006833,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (San Jose)
&#43;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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230328/f7ae38c0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 2661 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230328/f7ae38c0/attachment.ics>

From PolicyCalendar at icann.org  Tue Mar 28 23:44:14 2023
From: PolicyCalendar at icann.org (ICANN Policy Calendar)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 20:44:14 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Policy Call | 17 April at 11:30 UTC
Message-ID: <c49e256e22d14bff9e846b3191074cca@icann.org>

Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 17 April at 11:30 UTC.  Additional time zone support here<https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=NCSG+Policy+Call&iso=20230417T1130&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30>.

Join Zoom Meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/j/98878189584?pwd=ZVpkSVVuaXVqeGRMelNEWW1LMkxQUT09
Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584
Passcode: i!y7.qx&#43;11

WANT US TO CALL YOU? Please send dial-out request and apologies to brenda.brewer at icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>.

One tap mobile
&#43;16699006833,,98878189584#,,,,,,0#,,7740925615# US (San Jose)
&#43;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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230328/a462d159/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 2665 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230328/a462d159/attachment.ics>

From julf at Julf.com  Wed Mar 29 11:50:34 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 10:50:34 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board Seat 14 Nomination Procedures and Timeline
In-Reply-To: <62B7A7D8-861D-4D41-A890-5A08B17CB1A3@inta.org>
References: <5BD7FD6D-EECA-4BA4-895D-9C9A95F6E874@icann.org>
 <BL1PR12MB5030943FAB31444E420F1B58D3AF9@BL1PR12MB5030.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <b4bd9c07-00df-210b-672b-10b0f2848835@gmail.com>
 <BL1PR12MB503001CC9887498DDAA07B06D3B29@BL1PR12MB5030.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <2cd97614-be63-86d5-2764-793f02a60b62@gmail.com>
 <62B7A7D8-861D-4D41-A890-5A08B17CB1A3@inta.org>
Message-ID: <39630351-aec2-2227-3ee3-89ac51df061d@Julf.com>

Hi Lori,

I hope you are recovering well.

We still think Matthew is the best candidate for board seat 14, but in
order to move things forward we have talked to and evaluated people
both inside and outside our constituencies. Based on that we would
like to suggest Rafik Dammak as a candidate.

Rafik is very experienced and familiar with the GNSO, having served two
terms on the council, been Council vice-chair as well as co- or vice
chair for several working groups. His knowledge of statues and bylaws
is exemplary, and he is very factual, solution-driven and good at seeing
multiple points of view in a fair and neutral fashion.

I am attaching his SOI/CV, and would be happy to facilitate a
dialogue and/or interview with Rafik if you agree he is worth looking
at as a candidate.

	Julf

On 24/03/2023 17:24, Lori Schulman wrote:
> Hi Julf,
> 
> Thank you. I am hanging in there. It feels like a bad flu. The good news is that I tested negative today and the symptoms are easing.
> 
> We appreciate your communication and are sorry that NCSG feels that it cannot support Mark in this cycle.
> 
> We were hoping for a unified decision. In terms of the NCPH appointee being a match for the CSG appointee, we do not see this as a criteria for selection. Perhaps that is a point that we can discuss?
> 
> Nonetheless, we respect your decision and will revert back with suggested next steps.
> 
> Lori Schulman
> Senior Director, Internet Policy
> INTA
> +1-202-704-0408
> 
> 
>> On Mar 23, 2023, at 7:46 AM, Johan Helsingius <julf.helsingius at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ?Hi Lori,
>>
>> I hope the covid you got in Cancun is a mild one!
>>
>> We had an interesting and productive discussion with Mark
>> yesterday. We were impressed by his willingness to build
>> bridges, and appreciated his views on the roles of the
>> Board, GNSO and the constituencies in the ICANN ecosystem.
>>
>> Unfortunately we feel we can't at this point support him
>> for board seat 14, as we think his experience and gravitas
>> isn't quite up to Board level.
>>
>> We think the situation might be different in 3 years time,
>> when he has gathered more experience, and we are looking
>> forward to revisiting the situation then.
>>
>> Thus we still think Matthew, with his 6 years of board
>> experience, is the best candidate,
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>     Julf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Rafik Dammak boards seat 14 SOI.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 62614 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230329/ac16b1a3/attachment.pdf>

From lschulman at inta.org  Wed Mar 29 15:32:00 2023
From: lschulman at inta.org (Lori Schulman)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 12:32:00 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board Seat 14 Nomination Procedures and Timeline
In-Reply-To: <39630351-aec2-2227-3ee3-89ac51df061d@Julf.com>
References: <5BD7FD6D-EECA-4BA4-895D-9C9A95F6E874@icann.org>
 <BL1PR12MB5030943FAB31444E420F1B58D3AF9@BL1PR12MB5030.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <b4bd9c07-00df-210b-672b-10b0f2848835@gmail.com>
 <BL1PR12MB503001CC9887498DDAA07B06D3B29@BL1PR12MB5030.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <2cd97614-be63-86d5-2764-793f02a60b62@gmail.com>
 <62B7A7D8-861D-4D41-A890-5A08B17CB1A3@inta.org>
 <39630351-aec2-2227-3ee3-89ac51df061d@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <BL1PR12MB5030873AC83DE37BA782C106D3899@BL1PR12MB5030.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

Dear Julf,

Thank you for this suggestion.  I am "on the mend" as they say.  Rafik is a well known ICANNer with GNSO experience and we appreciate that you have added him to the list.  I reply as soon as possible once we have discussed this as a team.

With kind regards,
?
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408, Skype:? LSSchulman
lschulman at inta.org, www.inta.org
?

-----Original Message-----
From: Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 4:51 AM
To: Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>
Cc: Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie) <MCole at perkinscoie.com>; Tim Smith <tim.smith at cipa.com>; csg-excomm at icann.org; Mohr, Susan <Susan.Mohr at lumen.com>; Brian King <brian.king at clarivate.com>; philippe.fouquart at orange.com; NCSG EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>; ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
Subject: Re: Board Seat 14 Nomination Procedures and Timeline

Hi Lori,

I hope you are recovering well.

We still think Matthew is the best candidate for board seat 14, but in order to move things forward we have talked to and evaluated people both inside and outside our constituencies. Based on that we would like to suggest Rafik Dammak as a candidate.

Rafik is very experienced and familiar with the GNSO, having served two terms on the council, been Council vice-chair as well as co- or vice chair for several working groups. His knowledge of statues and bylaws is exemplary, and he is very factual, solution-driven and good at seeing multiple points of view in a fair and neutral fashion.

I am attaching his SOI/CV, and would be happy to facilitate a dialogue and/or interview with Rafik if you agree he is worth looking at as a candidate.

	Julf

On 24/03/2023 17:24, Lori Schulman wrote:
> Hi Julf,
> 
> Thank you. I am hanging in there. It feels like a bad flu. The good news is that I tested negative today and the symptoms are easing.
> 
> We appreciate your communication and are sorry that NCSG feels that it cannot support Mark in this cycle.
> 
> We were hoping for a unified decision. In terms of the NCPH appointee being a match for the CSG appointee, we do not see this as a criteria for selection. Perhaps that is a point that we can discuss?
> 
> Nonetheless, we respect your decision and will revert back with suggested next steps.
> 
> Lori Schulman
> Senior Director, Internet Policy
> INTA
> +1-202-704-0408
> 
> 
>> On Mar 23, 2023, at 7:46 AM, Johan Helsingius <julf.helsingius at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ?Hi Lori,
>>
>> I hope the covid you got in Cancun is a mild one!
>>
>> We had an interesting and productive discussion with Mark yesterday. 
>> We were impressed by his willingness to build bridges, and 
>> appreciated his views on the roles of the Board, GNSO and the 
>> constituencies in the ICANN ecosystem.
>>
>> Unfortunately we feel we can't at this point support him for board 
>> seat 14, as we think his experience and gravitas isn't quite up to 
>> Board level.
>>
>> We think the situation might be different in 3 years time, when he 
>> has gathered more experience, and we are looking forward to 
>> revisiting the situation then.
>>
>> Thus we still think Matthew, with his 6 years of board experience, is 
>> the best candidate,
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>     Julf

From jumaropi at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 29 23:33:14 2023
From: jumaropi at yahoo.com (Juan Manuel Rojas)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 20:33:14 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: REMINDER-Deadline approaching / Request for
 Early Input - GNSO Transfer Policy Review PDP
In-Reply-To: <6ff47bc0-c22d-b57a-22a9-8144e37199f5@Julf.com>
References: <E39E71D2-19D3-4D67-8B92-6CDED687EEBB@icann.org>
 <6ff47bc0-c22d-b57a-22a9-8144e37199f5@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <649409117.1453190.1680121994835@mail.yahoo.com>

Dear Julf, 
Thanks for your reminder. 

Here is the response document that I have created to answer this request. I'd like to all PC members feel free to correct grammar and add some information if consider necessary. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H2w9a9FvfSvFaVNeKMwcwKrfH9QcS1fesngxYvq_6Wc/edit?usp=sharing
Best Regards,
JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
Director - MINKA DIGITAL ColombiaNPOC Policy Chair - NCSG/GNSO
Master IT candidate, UNAD
Registered Linux User No.533108.


Cel. +57 301 743 56 00
Instagram/Twitter:?@JmanuRojas





? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

    El lunes, 27 de marzo de 2023, 08:57:32 a.?m. GMT-5, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> escribi?:  
 
 


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: ??? REMINDER-Deadline approaching / Request for Early Input - GNSO 
Transfer Policy Review PDP
Date: ??? Mon, 27 Mar 2023 13:48:10 +0000
From: ??? Julie Bisland <julie.bisland at icann.org>
To: ??? julf at julf.com <julf at julf.com>, Andrea Glandon 
<andrea.glandon at icann.org>
CC: ??? Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>, gnso-secs at icann.org 
<gnso-secs at icann.org>, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>, 
Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb at icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>



Dear Julf,

Please find attached a request from the GNSO Transfer Policy Review 
Policy Development Process Working Group forinputfrom your group on 
Group 2 topics within the PDP?s charter. Responses are requested by 4 
April 2023 and may be sent tognso-secs at icann.org 
<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>.

Kind regards,

Devan

*Devan Reed*
Policy Development Support - TEMP
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

www.icann.org 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=5Q2VHFiILluU8bvJHD3YjtNb84SyquCx2HSNHYn1ybs&m=X5iO0FCI3T2FxZ0KhKQ1iY0GhPzLH7XaiK8LfLcHSPY&s=grheVbJRc-hQqrXXGzMqUK3Htr0S5Z74HFOhmrag-Js&e=>

cidimage001.png at 01D4E0C6.320C4B80
_______________________________________________
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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230329/a17bb3f2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Transfer Policy Review PDP - Request for Early Input on Group 2 Topics .pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 184982 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230329/a17bb3f2/attachment.pdf>

From julf at Julf.com  Wed Mar 29 23:35:44 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 22:35:44 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: REMINDER-Deadline approaching / Request for
 Early Input - GNSO Transfer Policy Review PDP
In-Reply-To: <649409117.1453190.1680121994835@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <E39E71D2-19D3-4D67-8B92-6CDED687EEBB@icann.org>
 <6ff47bc0-c22d-b57a-22a9-8144e37199f5@Julf.com>
 <649409117.1453190.1680121994835@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <432ebda3-6eda-f145-a569-8a835a74e529@Julf.com>

Great! Thanks!!

	Julf

On 29/03/2023 22:33, Juan Manuel Rojas wrote:
> Dear Julf,
> Thanks for your reminder.
> 
> Here is the response document that I have created to answer this 
> request. I'd like to all PC members feel free to correct grammar and add 
> some information if consider necessary.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H2w9a9FvfSvFaVNeKMwcwKrfH9QcS1fesngxYvq_6Wc/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H2w9a9FvfSvFaVNeKMwcwKrfH9QcS1fesngxYvq_6Wc/edit?usp=sharing>
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> *JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.*
> Director - MINKA DIGITAL Colombia
> NPOC Policy Chair - NCSG/GNSO
> Master IT candidate, UNAD
> Registered Linux User No.*533108.*
> 
> 
> /Cel. +57 301 743 56 00
> Instagram/Twitter: @JmanuRojas <http://www.twitter.com/jmanurojas>/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> El lunes, 27 de marzo de 2023, 08:57:32 a.?m. GMT-5, Johan Helsingius 
> <julf at julf.com> escribi?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: ??? REMINDER-Deadline approaching / Request for Early Input - GNSO
> Transfer Policy Review PDP
> Date: ??? Mon, 27 Mar 2023 13:48:10 +0000
> From: ??? Julie Bisland <julie.bisland at icann.org 
> <mailto:julie.bisland at icann.org>>
> To: julf at julf.com <mailto:julf at julf.com> <julf at julf.com 
> <mailto:julf at julf.com>>, Andrea Glandon
> <andrea.glandon at icann.org <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org>>
> CC: ??? Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org 
> <mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>, gnso-secs at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
> <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>, Caitlin Tubergen 
> <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org <mailto:caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>>,
> Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb at icann.org <mailto:Berry.Cobb at icann.org>>, Julie 
> Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Julf,
> 
> Please find attached a request from the GNSO Transfer Policy Review
> Policy Development Process Working Group forinputfrom your group on
> Group 2 topics within the PDP?s charter. Responses are requested by 4
> April 2023 and may be sent tognso-secs at icann.org 
> <mailto:tognso-secs at icann.org>
> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Devan
> 
> *Devan Reed*
> Policy Development Support - TEMP
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> 
> www.icann.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=5Q2VHFiILluU8bvJHD3YjtNb84SyquCx2HSNHYn1ybs&m=X5iO0FCI3T2FxZ0KhKQ1iY0GhPzLH7XaiK8LfLcHSPY&s=grheVbJRc-hQqrXXGzMqUK3Htr0S5Z74HFOhmrag-Js&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=5Q2VHFiILluU8bvJHD3YjtNb84SyquCx2HSNHYn1ybs&m=X5iO0FCI3T2FxZ0KhKQ1iY0GhPzLH7XaiK8LfLcHSPY&s=grheVbJRc-hQqrXXGzMqUK3Htr0S5Z74HFOhmrag-Js&e=>>
> 
> cidimage001.png at 01D4E0C6.320C4B80 <mailto:cidimage001.png at 01D4E0C6.320C4B80>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc 
> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>


From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Thu Mar 30 01:45:29 2023
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 00:45:29 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: REMINDER-Deadline approaching / Request for
 Early Input - GNSO Transfer Policy Review PDP
In-Reply-To: <649409117.1453190.1680121994835@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <E39E71D2-19D3-4D67-8B92-6CDED687EEBB@icann.org>
 <6ff47bc0-c22d-b57a-22a9-8144e37199f5@Julf.com>
 <649409117.1453190.1680121994835@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeWRAJkV2AAqhfMmz-KdKyhnGdLQhqQYG8Ypo-Ko7BpQ6Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Juan,

Thanks for giving this a first stab. I encourage all PC members to
contribute to it. Unfortunately I am travelling so I won't be able to take
a look before April 3rd.

Warmly,
Tomslin

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, 22:33 Juan Manuel Rojas via NCSG-PC, <
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

> Dear Julf,
> Thanks for your reminder.
>
> Here is the response document that I have created to answer this request.
> I'd like to all PC members feel free to correct grammar and add some
> information if consider necessary.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H2w9a9FvfSvFaVNeKMwcwKrfH9QcS1fesngxYvq_6Wc/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Best Regards,
>
> *JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.*
> Director - MINKA DIGITAL Colombia
> NPOC Policy Chair - NCSG/GNSO
> Master IT candidate, UNAD
> Registered Linux User No.*533108.*
>
>
>
> *Cel. +57 301 743 56 00Instagram/Twitter: @JmanuRojas
> <http://www.twitter.com/jmanurojas>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El lunes, 27 de marzo de 2023, 08:57:32 a. m. GMT-5, Johan Helsingius <
> julf at julf.com> escribi?:
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:     REMINDER-Deadline approaching / Request for Early Input -
> GNSO
> Transfer Policy Review PDP
> Date:     Mon, 27 Mar 2023 13:48:10 +0000
> From:     Julie Bisland <julie.bisland at icann.org>
> To:     julf at julf.com <julf at julf.com>, Andrea Glandon
> <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
> CC:     Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>, gnso-secs at icann.org
> <gnso-secs at icann.org>, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>,
> Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb at icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>
>
>
> Dear Julf,
>
> Please find attached a request from the GNSO Transfer Policy Review
> Policy Development Process Working Group forinputfrom your group on
> Group 2 topics within the PDP?s charter. Responses are requested by 4
> April 2023 and may be sent tognso-secs at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Devan
>
> *Devan Reed*
> Policy Development Support - TEMP
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> www.icann.org
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=5Q2VHFiILluU8bvJHD3YjtNb84SyquCx2HSNHYn1ybs&m=X5iO0FCI3T2FxZ0KhKQ1iY0GhPzLH7XaiK8LfLcHSPY&s=grheVbJRc-hQqrXXGzMqUK3Htr0S5Z74HFOhmrag-Js&e=
> >
>
> cidimage001.png at 01D4E0C6.320C4B80
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230330/730425cb/attachment.htm>

From manju at nii.org.tw  Thu Mar 30 08:26:39 2023
From: manju at nii.org.tw (=?UTF-8?B?6Zmz5pu86Iy5IE1hbmp1IENoZW4=?=)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 13:26:39 +0800
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Policy Call | 17 April at 11:30 UTC
In-Reply-To: <c49e256e22d14bff9e846b3191074cca@icann.org>
References: <c49e256e22d14bff9e846b3191074cca@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAMeQZi3JzYDZKG+2r_-p8Jt4RRBc-Gq+Vtcpg6sEttR3ZP=+hw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi guys,

Sorry I won't be able to make this one. I'll be traveling.

Best,
Manju

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 4:44?AM ICANN Policy Calendar <
PolicyCalendar at icann.org> wrote:

> *Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 17 April at 11:30
> UTC.*  Additional time zone support here
> <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=NCSG+Policy+Call&iso=20230417T1130&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30>
> .
>
>
>
> Join Zoom Meeting: *https://icann.zoom.us/j/98878189584?pwd=ZVpkSVVuaXVqeGRMelNEWW1LMkxQUT09
> <https://icann.zoom.us/j/98878189584?pwd=ZVpkSVVuaXVqeGRMelNEWW1LMkxQUT09>*
>
> Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584
>
> Passcode: i!y7.qx+11
>
>
>
> *WANT US TO CALL YOU?* Please send dial-out request and apologies to *brenda.brewer at icann.org
> <brenda.brewer at icann.org>.*
>
>
>
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230330/09691b47/attachment.htm>

From wisdom.dk at gmail.com  Thu Mar 30 13:00:08 2023
From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:00:08 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: REMINDER-Deadline approaching / Request for
 Early Input - GNSO Transfer Policy Review PDP
In-Reply-To: <CAM8DdeWRAJkV2AAqhfMmz-KdKyhnGdLQhqQYG8Ypo-Ko7BpQ6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E39E71D2-19D3-4D67-8B92-6CDED687EEBB@icann.org>
 <6ff47bc0-c22d-b57a-22a9-8144e37199f5@Julf.com>
 <649409117.1453190.1680121994835@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAM8DdeWRAJkV2AAqhfMmz-KdKyhnGdLQhqQYG8Ypo-Ko7BpQ6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAU+vPEnu4DTM8AEcEi5eHo-8aGyA0=fjpQRDwb9Vxho60q8OQ@mail.gmail.com>

Noted with thanks

*Wisdom Donkor* (CASP+,  CISM, CEH Certified,)
President & CEO
Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation (AODIRF) | Africa
Geospatial Data and Internet Conference (AGDIC)
P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org  / www.
<http://www.afrigeocon.org>agdic.info
Tel: +233 20 812 8851
Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom |  Twitter: @wisdom_dk
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ICANN GNSO Council Member | ICANN transfer policy review working group
Member  | Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous
Improvement (CCOICI) | UN IGF MAG Member | IGF Support Fund Association
Executive Committee 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, Geospatial Technologies, Open Source Technologies, Domain Name
Systems, Human Resource Planning and Development, Software Engineering,
Event Planning & Management,


On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 10:45?PM Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Juan,
>
> Thanks for giving this a first stab. I encourage all PC members to
> contribute to it. Unfortunately I am travelling so I won't be able to take
> a look before April 3rd.
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
>
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, 22:33 Juan Manuel Rojas via NCSG-PC, <
> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>
>> Dear Julf,
>> Thanks for your reminder.
>>
>> Here is the response document that I have created to answer this request.
>> I'd like to all PC members feel free to correct grammar and add some
>> information if consider necessary.
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H2w9a9FvfSvFaVNeKMwcwKrfH9QcS1fesngxYvq_6Wc/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> *JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.*
>> Director - MINKA DIGITAL Colombia
>> NPOC Policy Chair - NCSG/GNSO
>> Master IT candidate, UNAD
>> Registered Linux User No.*533108.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Cel. +57 301 743 56 00Instagram/Twitter: @JmanuRojas
>> <http://www.twitter.com/jmanurojas>*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> El lunes, 27 de marzo de 2023, 08:57:32 a. m. GMT-5, Johan Helsingius <
>> julf at julf.com> escribi?:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:     REMINDER-Deadline approaching / Request for Early Input -
>> GNSO
>> Transfer Policy Review PDP
>> Date:     Mon, 27 Mar 2023 13:48:10 +0000
>> From:     Julie Bisland <julie.bisland at icann.org>
>> To:     julf at julf.com <julf at julf.com>, Andrea Glandon
>> <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
>> CC:     Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>, gnso-secs at icann.org
>> <gnso-secs at icann.org>, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>,
>> Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb at icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Julf,
>>
>> Please find attached a request from the GNSO Transfer Policy Review
>> Policy Development Process Working Group forinputfrom your group on
>> Group 2 topics within the PDP?s charter. Responses are requested by 4
>> April 2023 and may be sent tognso-secs at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Devan
>>
>> *Devan Reed*
>> Policy Development Support - TEMP
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> www.icann.org
>> <
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=5Q2VHFiILluU8bvJHD3YjtNb84SyquCx2HSNHYn1ybs&m=X5iO0FCI3T2FxZ0KhKQ1iY0GhPzLH7XaiK8LfLcHSPY&s=grheVbJRc-hQqrXXGzMqUK3Htr0S5Z74HFOhmrag-Js&e=
>> >
>>
>> cidimage001.png at 01D4E0C6.320C4B80
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230330/4a749219/attachment.htm>

From jumaropi at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 30 16:44:59 2023
From: jumaropi at yahoo.com (Juan Manuel Rojas)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 13:44:59 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fw: [GNSO-TPR] Deadline Extended to 18 April 2023 -
 Request for Early Input - GNSO Transfer Policy Review PDP
In-Reply-To: <B087E52C-DE76-483F-A292-FE97026C7CAF@icann.org>
References: <B087E52C-DE76-483F-A292-FE97026C7CAF@icann.org>
Message-ID: <1821332190.1622253.1680183899860@mail.yahoo.com>

Hi everyone, 
Just to inform that deadline for answering questions for TPR was changed to April 18th. See the message below

JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
Director - MINKA DIGITAL ColombiaNPOC Policy Chair - NCSG/GNSO
Master IT candidate, UNAD
Registered Linux User No.533108.


Cel. +57 301 743 56 00
Instagram/Twitter:?@JmanuRojas





? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 

   ----- Mensaje reenviado ----- De: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>Para: gnso-tpr at icann.org <gnso-tpr at icann.org>Enviado: jueves, 30 de marzo de 2023, 07:50:26 a.?m. GMT-5Asunto: [GNSO-TPR] Deadline Extended to 18 April 2023 - Request for Early Input - GNSO Transfer Policy Review PDP
  
Dear WG members,
 
 ?
 
In response to requests for additional time, the deadline for SO/AC/SG/Cs to provide early written input on ?group 2? charter questions has been extended to 18 April. Messages about this extension will go out soon to the SO/AC/SG/C leaders.
 
 ?
 
While groups will have more time to provide written input,deliberations on TEAC and TDRP will continue to progress in the WG. To help support fruitful deliberations in the coming weeks,please continue to coordinate with the SO/AC/SG/C you represent and raise positions/views on behalf of your group in the upcoming working group discussions.
 
 ?
 
Please feel free to reach out on list with any questions.
 
 ?
 
Kind regards,
 
Julie, Caitlin, Berry and Emily on behalf of Roger Carney, WG Chair
 
 ?
 
Emily Barabas
 
Policy Development Support Senior Manager
 
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
 
Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
 
www.icann.org
 
?
 
 ?
 _______________________________________________
GNSO-TPR mailing list
GNSO-TPR at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230330/b7b3145c/attachment.htm>

From brenda.brewer at icann.org  Thu Mar 30 21:17:42 2023
From: brenda.brewer at icann.org (Brenda Brewer)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 18:17:42 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Policy Call | 22 May at 11:30 UTC
Message-ID: <8B672ED8-3973-4957-989E-2789DAA1890F@icann.org>

Good day all,

Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 22 May at 11:30 UTC.  Additional time zone support here<https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=NCSG+Policy+Call&iso=20230522T1130&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30>. Join details are attached and noted below for your convenience. Thank you.

Join Zoom Meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/j/98878189584?pwd=ZVpkSVVuaXVqeGRMelNEWW1LMkxQUT09
Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584
Passcode: i!y7.qx+11

WANT US TO CALL YOU? Please send dial-out request and apologies to brenda.brewer at icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>.

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

Best,
Brenda

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230330/aaf57baf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Policy Call  22 May at 11-30 UTC.ics
Type: text/calendar
Size: 2675 bytes
Desc: NCSG Policy Call  22 May at 11-30 UTC.ics
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230330/aaf57baf/attachment.ics>

From brenda.brewer at icann.org  Thu Mar 30 21:17:47 2023
From: brenda.brewer at icann.org (Brenda Brewer)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 18:17:47 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] NCSG Policy Call | 17 April at 11:30 UTC
Message-ID: <4FE61F13-EC23-4635-9019-99663ECBFD3D@icann.org>

Good day all,

Please join the NCSG Monthly Policy call on Monday, 17 April at 11:30 UTC. Additional time zone support here<https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=NCSG+Policy+Call&iso=20230417T1130&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30>. Join details are attached and noted below for your convenience. Thank you.

Join Zoom Meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/j/98878189584?pwd=ZVpkSVVuaXVqeGRMelNEWW1LMkxQUT09
Meeting ID: 988 7818 9584
Passcode: i!y7.qx+11

WANT US TO CALL YOU? Please send dial-out request and apologies to brenda.brewer at icann.org<mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>.

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

Best,
Brenda

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230330/ca1f3cca/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Policy Call  17 April at 11-30 UTC.ics
Type: text/calendar
Size: 2679 bytes
Desc: NCSG Policy Call  17 April at 11-30 UTC.ics
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230330/ca1f3cca/attachment.ics>

From manju at nii.org.tw  Fri Mar 31 05:45:01 2023
From: manju at nii.org.tw (=?UTF-8?B?6Zmz5pu86Iy5IE1hbmp1IENoZW4=?=)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 10:45:01 +0800
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting
 01 March 2023 at 14:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <D714D441-D64B-4A46-86BC-8F5447674F4C@icann.org>
References: <8AADE2FF-67C3-4AFF-B615-545273144B25@icann.org>
 <CANbN3_R7kREVWphDie5RVWED_maKhVRBA_yUMpYm+S79MK59BA@mail.gmail.com>
 <D714D441-D64B-4A46-86BC-8F5447674F4C@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAMeQZi01VVZfC_DRBMvjH7V6Y6LcUOAtKcEys0qhUVfbSXA=DA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

We've discussed extensively the topic of SOI in Cancun.
Please find below the request from staff for each SG to submit their
statements on this topic by *Friday 7 April .*
You can also find BC's statement below. NCSG could consider whether to
respond since they made an effort mentioning us in their statement.

As I mentioned before, I'm NOT the NCSG representative but the Council
liaison to the task force. I'd urge our representative on the task force to
draft a statement and circulate it on the list before submitting it to the
task force. I recommend using the statement NCSG has presented during the
Council Town Hall session in Cancun.

Best,
Manju



---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Date: Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 10:27?PM
Subject: Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 01 March
2023 at 14:00 UTC
To: Imran Hossen <imran at eysoftbd.com>, Julie Hedlund <
julie.hedlund at icann.org>, gnso-soi-tf at icann.org <gnso-soi-tf at icann.org>


Thanks, Imran. Can you confirm that this is the statement that the BC would
like to include in the report on this topic?



All, we have a call scheduled for next week, but we are going to give
everyone a bit more time to consult and prepare statements on the exemption
language for inclusion in the report. In the meantime, we will also consult
with Manju as the CCOICI liaison to this effort to see if there are further
efforts we can undertake to bring the group closer together on this issue,
or whether it is time to escalate it to the CCOICI for resolution. Of
course, if there are any new proposals or changes in views on this topic,
feel free to share these with the list.



The meeting will be moved to Wednesday 12 April so please submit your
group?s statements *by Friday 7 April at the latest*.



Best regards,



Julie & Marika



*From: *GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Imran
Hossen <imran at eysoftbd.com>
*Date: *Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 14:29
*To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "gnso-soi-tf at icann.org" <
gnso-soi-tf at icann.org>
*Subject: *Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 01 March
2023 at 14:00 UTC



Hi,

In terms of my representation of the BC?s position, I consulted with the BC
Chair and I believe we?re in agreement that the BC is strongly opposed to
this proposal.  Reasoning:



   - Contracted parties and their allies are positioning this as a
   transparency issue.  That calls for some skepticism.
   - The BC is not in favor of eliminating a swath of ICANN participants
   simply because they are ethically bound to not disclose their client
   relationships.  There are myriad reasons ? not the least of which would be
   the fact that disclosure of those being represented could invite even more
   gaming into the ICANN system.  For example, an attorney representing a new
   gTLD applicant could be compelled to disclose his/her relationship with
   that applicant, inviting a competing application.  That?s just one example.
   - Proponents of the rule change have suggested as a compromise that,
   should a participant be in this position, he/she could just disclose the
   identity of the client relationship to ICANN Org or the working group
   chair.  That, frankly, is preposterous ? ICANN is a sieve of information
   leakage in the first place, and ? further ? such disclosure puts one or two
   individuals into a decision-making position on that person?s
   participation.  ICANN is not in the business of appointing people who can
   arbitrate others? participation.
   - Interesting that the NCSG ? which is a vociferous proponent of privacy
   ? is beating the drum for revealing representation.  They can?t have it
   both ways ? protect identities when they want and don?t when they find it
   convenient.





On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 8:47?PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
wrote:

Dear All,



Please see below the action items and brief notes from today?s SOI Task
Force meeting on Wednesday, 01 March 2023 at 14:00 UTC.  These also are
posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg.



Kind regards,

Marika and Julie



*GNSO SOI TF Meeting on Wednesday 01 March at 14:00 UTC*



*ACTION ITEMS: *

   1. *SOI TF members to provide their position statements on the exemption
   language by 24 March that can be included in the report to the CCOICI.
   Staff to specifically request feedback from IPSPC and BC as we have yet to
   hear from those groups.*
   2. *GNSO Secretariat staff to 1) circulate a Doodle poll to schedule an
   informal meeting for Wednesday or Thursday at ICANN76; 2) schedule a SOI TF
   meeting for Wednesday, 29 March at 1400 UTC.*
   3. *SOI TF members to suggest possible questions for ICANN Legal.*



*Notes: *



1. Welcome



2. Consider possible modification of exemption language whereby represented
individual or entity information is shared only with WG leadership if
exemption is invoked.  See:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit
[docs.google.com]
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit__;!!PtGJab4!6DbG5NBCJY713AFh2289AXAqDrObS3KKfp1qtaYPoJRRvwFpeG9o-t4FgQK9SAnMgW9Fx2DTCZ1XBwFDZ4kheRqu3A$>



If no support for 2:



3. Positions on exemption language (awaiting input from ISPCP and BC)



   - RySG will have feedback soon ? it is an interesting compromise. Also
   awaiting feedback from the registrars.
   - RrSG: A lot of questions of where these recommendations go from here.
   Still could be several concerns.
   - If this TF can?t come to consensus on language, it will go back to the
   CCOICI and then to the Council.  The Council would vote on changes to the
   Operating Procedures as a simply majority vote.  Also is sent to the Board.
   - IPC: Appreciate the attempt at a compromise, but if you can?t disclose
   then you can?t disclose to the leadership.
   - If additional time is needed to consider, we should take it.  Can also
   discuss at the ICANN76 Council meeting.  It would be helpful for each group
   to state their views for the CCOICI to consider.  Seems that this is the
   only point of disagreement in the revisions to the SOI.
   - NCSG: Strong opposition to the existing text.
   - RySG: We will still develop some examples to be posted with the SOI.



4. Possible SOI Pilot



   - Not clear that this will be worth the effort and time if groups won?t
   change their views.



5. Possible question to ICANN legal



   - Important to frame the question and get agreement that this would be
   helpful.



6. Confirm next steps



   - Helpful to get statements of positions from TF member groups to be
   included in the report to the CCOICI to consider.
   - Deadline by 24 March to submit their statements on the exemption
   language.
   - Reconvene on 29 March at 1400 UTC to review the final report.
   - No further public comment period is planned unless the CCOICI makes
   changes.  Not sure what it would achieve at this point as this already an
   issue that was called out in public comment.
   - RrSG: Consider putting this out for public comment again before going
   to Council as people were not paying attention.
   - Staff: If we do a focused public comment we need to agree on specific
   question(s) that would yield responses that could move this forward.  Also
   there is the opportunity to socialize among your groups at ICANN76 ? could
   set up an informal SOI TF meeting in a sign-up room if available (no remote
   access).  Is there interest in this?  Possibly but it would need to be
   later in the week.  Secretariat to do a Doodle poll.



*ACTION ITEMS: *

   1. *SOI TF members to provide their position statements on the exemption
   language by 24 March that can be included in the report to the CCOICI.
   Staff to specifically request feedback from IPSPC and BC as we have yet to
   hear from those groups.*
   2. *GNSO Secretariat staff to 1) circulate a Doodle poll to schedule an
   informal meeting for Wednesday or Thursday at ICANN76; 2) schedule a SOI TF
   meeting for Wednesday, 29 March at 1400 UTC.*
   3. *SOI TF members to suggest possible questions for ICANN Legal.*



_______________________________________________
GNSO-SOI-TF mailing list
GNSO-SOI-TF at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-soi-tf

_______________________________________________
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.



-- 

*Imran Hossen*

Managing Director   | CEO

*EyHost Ltd.  *          | *EySoft IT Solution*

*Skype:* imran891

*Phone: *+8801619474927

www.eysoftbd.com [eysoftbd.com]
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.eysoftbd.com__;!!PtGJab4!6DbG5NBCJY713AFh2289AXAqDrObS3KKfp1qtaYPoJRRvwFpeG9o-t4FgQK9SAnMgW9Fx2DTCZ1XBwFDZ4kNqGv0BQ$>
| www.eyhost.biz [eyhost.biz]
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.eyhost.biz__;!!PtGJab4!6DbG5NBCJY713AFh2289AXAqDrObS3KKfp1qtaYPoJRRvwFpeG9o-t4FgQK9SAnMgW9Fx2DTCZ1XBwFDZ4kVR0ff5w$>
_______________________________________________
GNSO-SOI-TF mailing list
GNSO-SOI-TF at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-soi-tf

_______________________________________________
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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230331/a305160a/attachment.htm>

From Kathy at KathyKleiman.com  Fri Mar 31 17:57:00 2023
From: Kathy at KathyKleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 10:57:00 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF
 Meeting 01 March 2023 at 14:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <CAMeQZi01VVZfC_DRBMvjH7V6Y6LcUOAtKcEys0qhUVfbSXA=DA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8AADE2FF-67C3-4AFF-B615-545273144B25@icann.org>
 <CANbN3_R7kREVWphDie5RVWED_maKhVRBA_yUMpYm+S79MK59BA@mail.gmail.com>
 <D714D441-D64B-4A46-86BC-8F5447674F4C@icann.org>
 <CAMeQZi01VVZfC_DRBMvjH7V6Y6LcUOAtKcEys0qhUVfbSXA=DA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2f01daeb-cad0-02f3-33ff-088b3401b751@KathyKleiman.com>

<<Interesting that the NCSG ? which is a vociferous proponent of privacy 
? is beating the drum for revealing representation.? They can?t have it 
both ways ? protect identities when they want and don?t when they find 
it convenient.>>

The response here is that privacy and transparency are not adverse - 
public interest and noncommercial groups regularly advocate for 
appropriate privacy AND appropriate transparency. The same people who 
are most ardent advocates for privacy are also the leaders of Freedom of 
Information legislation and initiatives around the world.

We need to know how our policymaking groups work; we need clear and open 
policy making processes, we need to know who is at the table influencing 
policy decisions.

In US regulatory agencies, if you meet privately with a policy maker 
about an open policy proceeding, you must file an Ex Parte letter making 
clear who you represent and what you discussed with the 
policy-maker/decision-maker. If you participate in the process with 
testimony, white papers, and especially comments, of course you must say 
on whose behalf you are filing.

No, privacy and transparency part of the very same process - they work 
together to make sure that large corporations cannot control the world.

/*If someone wants to draft short comments for us - I'll edit. 
Unbelievably busy next week...
*/

/*B*/est, Kathy

On 3/30/2023 10:45 PM, ??? Manju Chen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We've discussed extensively the topic of SOI in Cancun.
> Please find below the request from staff for each SG to submit their 
> statements on this topic by *_Friday 7 April ._*
> You can also find BC's statement below. NCSG could consider whether to 
> respond since they made an effort mentioning us in their statement.
>
> As I mentioned before, I'm NOT the NCSG representative but the Council 
> liaison to the task force. I'd urge our representative on the task 
> force to draft a statement and circulate it on the list before 
> submitting it to the task force. I recommend using the statement NCSG 
> has presented during the Council Town Hall session in Cancun.
>
> Best,
> Manju
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Marika Konings* <marika.konings at icann.org>
> Date: Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 10:27?PM
> Subject: Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 01 
> March 2023 at 14:00 UTC
> To: Imran Hossen <imran at eysoftbd.com>, Julie Hedlund 
> <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, gnso-soi-tf at icann.org <gnso-soi-tf at icann.org>
>
>
> Thanks, Imran. Can you confirm that this is the statement that the BC 
> would like to include in the report on this topic?
>
> All, we have a call scheduled for next week, but we are going to give 
> everyone a bit more time to consult and prepare statements on the 
> exemption language for inclusion in the report. In the meantime, we 
> will also consult with Manju as the CCOICI liaison to this effort to 
> see if there are further efforts we can undertake to bring the group 
> closer together on this issue, or whether it is time to escalate it to 
> the CCOICI for resolution. Of course, if there are any new proposals 
> or changes in views on this topic, feel free to share these with the 
> list.
>
> The meeting will be moved to Wednesday 12 April so please submit your 
> group?s statements *_by Friday 7 April at the latest_*.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie & Marika
>
> *From: *GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Imran 
> Hossen <imran at eysoftbd.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 14:29
> *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "gnso-soi-tf at icann.org" 
> <gnso-soi-tf at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 01 
> March 2023 at 14:00 UTC
>
> Hi,
>
> In terms of my representation of the BC?s position, I consulted with 
> the BC Chair and I believe we?re in agreement that the BC is strongly 
> opposed to this proposal.? Reasoning:
>
>   * Contracted parties and their allies are positioning this as a
>     transparency issue.? That calls for some skepticism.
>   * The BC is not in favor of eliminating a swath of ICANN
>     participants simply because they are ethically bound to not
>     disclose their client relationships.? There are myriad reasons ?
>     not the least of which would be the fact that disclosure of those
>     being represented could invite even more gaming into the ICANN
>     system.? For example, an attorney representing a new gTLD
>     applicant could be compelled to disclose his/her relationship with
>     that applicant, inviting a competing application. That?s just one
>     example.
>   * Proponents of the rule change have suggested as a compromise that,
>     should a participant be in this position, he/she could just
>     disclose the identity of the client relationship to ICANN Org or
>     the working group chair.? That, frankly, is preposterous ? ICANN
>     is a sieve of information leakage in the first place, and ?
>     further ? such disclosure puts one or two individuals into a
>     decision-making position on that person?s participation.? ICANN is
>     not in the business of appointing people who can arbitrate others?
>     participation.
>   * Interesting that the NCSG ? which is a vociferous proponent of
>     privacy ? is beating the drum for revealing representation.? They
>     can?t have it both ways ? protect identities when they want and
>     don?t when they find it convenient.
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 8:47?PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> 
> wrote:
>
>     Dear All,
>
>     Please see below the action items and brief notes from today?s SOI
>     Task Force meeting on Wednesday, 01 March 2023 at 14:00 UTC. These
>     also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg.
>
>     Kind regards,
>
>     Marika and Julie
>
>     *GNSO SOI TF Meeting on Wednesday 01 March at 14:00 UTC*
>
>     **
>
>     *ACTION ITEMS: *
>
>      1. *SOI TF members to provide their position statements on the
>         exemption language by 24 March that can be included in the
>         report to the CCOICI. Staff to specifically request feedback
>         from IPSPC and BC as we have yet to hear from those groups.*
>      2. *GNSO Secretariat staff to 1) circulate a Doodle poll to
>         schedule an informal meeting for Wednesday or Thursday at
>         ICANN76; 2) schedule a SOI TF meeting for Wednesday, 29 March
>         at 1400 UTC.*
>      3. *SOI TF members to suggest possible questions for ICANN Legal.*
>
>     **
>
>     *Notes: *
>
>     1. Welcome
>
>     2. Consider possible modification of exemption language whereby
>     represented individual or entity information is shared only with
>     WG leadership if exemption is invoked.? See:
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit
>     [docs.google.com]
>     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit__;!!PtGJab4!6DbG5NBCJY713AFh2289AXAqDrObS3KKfp1qtaYPoJRRvwFpeG9o-t4FgQK9SAnMgW9Fx2DTCZ1XBwFDZ4kheRqu3A$>
>
>
>     If no support for 2:
>
>     3. Positions on exemption language (awaiting input from ISPCP and BC)
>
>       * RySG will have feedback soon ? it is an interesting
>         compromise. Also awaiting feedback from the registrars.
>       * RrSG: A lot of questions of where these recommendations go
>         from here.? Still could be several concerns.
>       * If this TF can?t come to consensus on language, it will go
>         back to the CCOICI and then to the Council.? The Council would
>         vote on changes to the Operating Procedures as a simply
>         majority vote.? Also is sent to the Board.
>       * IPC: Appreciate the attempt at a compromise, but if you can?t
>         disclose then you can?t disclose to the leadership.
>       * If additional time is needed to consider, we should take it.
>         Can also discuss at the ICANN76 Council meeting.? It would be
>         helpful for each group to state their views for the CCOICI to
>         consider.? Seems that this is the only point of disagreement
>         in the revisions to the SOI.
>       * NCSG: Strong opposition to the existing text.
>       * RySG: We will still develop some examples to be posted with
>         the SOI.
>
>     4. Possible SOI Pilot
>
>       * Not clear that this will be worth the effort and time if
>         groups won?t change their views.
>
>     5. Possible question to ICANN legal
>
>       * Important to frame the question and get agreement that this
>         would be helpful.
>
>     6. Confirm next steps
>
>       * Helpful to get statements of positions from TF member groups
>         to be included in the report to the CCOICI to consider.
>       * Deadline by 24 March to submit their statements on the
>         exemption language.
>       * Reconvene on 29 March at 1400 UTC to review the final report.
>       * No further public comment period is planned unless the CCOICI
>         makes changes.? Not sure what it would achieve at this point
>         as this already an issue that was called out in public comment.
>       * RrSG: Consider putting this out for public comment again
>         before going to Council as people were not paying attention.
>       * Staff: If we do a focused public comment we need to agree on
>         specific question(s) that would yield responses that could
>         move this forward. Also there is the opportunity to socialize
>         among your groups at ICANN76 ? could set up an informal SOI TF
>         meeting in a sign-up room if available (no remote access).? Is
>         there interest in this?? Possibly but it would need to be
>         later in the week.? Secretariat to do a Doodle poll.
>
>     *ACTION ITEMS: *
>
>      1. *SOI TF members to provide their position statements on the
>         exemption language by 24 March that can be included in the
>         report to the CCOICI. Staff to specifically request feedback
>         from IPSPC and BC as we have yet to hear from those groups.*
>      2. *GNSO Secretariat staff to 1) circulate a Doodle poll to
>         schedule an informal meeting for Wednesday or Thursday at
>         ICANN76; 2) schedule a SOI TF meeting for Wednesday, 29 March
>         at 1400 UTC.*
>      3. *SOI TF members to suggest possible questions for ICANN Legal.*
>
>     **
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     GNSO-SOI-TF mailing list
>     GNSO-SOI-TF at icann.org
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-soi-tf
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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.
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> *Imran Hossen*
>
> Managing Director?? | CEO
>
> *EyHost Ltd. *????????? | *EySoft IT Solution*
>
> *Skype:* imran891
>
> *Phone: *+8801619474927
>
> www.eysoftbd.com [eysoftbd.com] 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.eysoftbd.com__;!!PtGJab4!6DbG5NBCJY713AFh2289AXAqDrObS3KKfp1qtaYPoJRRvwFpeG9o-t4FgQK9SAnMgW9Fx2DTCZ1XBwFDZ4kNqGv0BQ$> 
> | www.eyhost.biz [eyhost.biz] 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.eyhost.biz__;!!PtGJab4!6DbG5NBCJY713AFh2289AXAqDrObS3KKfp1qtaYPoJRRvwFpeG9o-t4FgQK9SAnMgW9Fx2DTCZ1XBwFDZ4kVR0ff5w$>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-SOI-TF mailing list
> GNSO-SOI-TF at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-soi-tf
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230331/19f907f5/attachment.htm>

From julf at Julf.com  Fri Mar 31 19:16:19 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 18:16:19 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF
 Meeting 01 March 2023 at 14:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <CAMeQZi01VVZfC_DRBMvjH7V6Y6LcUOAtKcEys0qhUVfbSXA=DA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8AADE2FF-67C3-4AFF-B615-545273144B25@icann.org>
 <CANbN3_R7kREVWphDie5RVWED_maKhVRBA_yUMpYm+S79MK59BA@mail.gmail.com>
 <D714D441-D64B-4A46-86BC-8F5447674F4C@icann.org>
 <CAMeQZi01VVZfC_DRBMvjH7V6Y6LcUOAtKcEys0qhUVfbSXA=DA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <349071a7-8f18-2d80-19c3-c347bd242a06@Julf.com>

David,

Will you be able to circulate a draft statement (that needs to also
specifically address the comment from BC)?

	Julf

On 31/03/2023 04:45, ??? Manju Chen wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> We've discussed extensively the topic of SOI in Cancun.
> Please find below the request from staff for each SG to submit their 
> statements on this topic by *_Friday 7 April ._*
> You can also find BC's statement below. NCSG could consider whether to 
> respond since they made an effort mentioning us in their statement.
> 
> As I mentioned before, I'm NOT the NCSG representative but the Council 
> liaison to the task force. I'd urge our representative on the task force 
> to draft a statement and circulate it on the list before submitting it 
> to the task force. I recommend using the statement NCSG has presented 
> during the Council Town Hall session in Cancun.
> 
> Best,
> Manju
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Marika Konings* <marika.konings at icann.org 
> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
> Date: Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 10:27?PM
> Subject: Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 01 March 
> 2023 at 14:00 UTC
> To: Imran Hossen <imran at eysoftbd.com <mailto:imran at eysoftbd.com>>, Julie 
> Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>, 
> gnso-soi-tf at icann.org <mailto:gnso-soi-tf at icann.org> 
> <gnso-soi-tf at icann.org <mailto:gnso-soi-tf at icann.org>>
> 
> 
> Thanks, Imran. Can you confirm that this is the statement that the BC 
> would like to include in the report on this topic? ____
> 
> __ __
> 
> All, we have a call scheduled for next week, but we are going to give 
> everyone a bit more time to consult and prepare statements on the 
> exemption language for inclusion in the report. In the meantime, we will 
> also consult with Manju as the CCOICI liaison to this effort to see if 
> there are further efforts we can undertake to bring the group closer 
> together on this issue, or whether it is time to escalate it to the 
> CCOICI for resolution. Of course, if there are any new proposals or 
> changes in views on this topic, feel free to share these with the list. ____
> 
> __ __
> 
> The meeting will be moved to Wednesday 12 April so please submit your 
> group?s statements *_by Friday 7 April at the latest_*. ____
> 
> __ __
> 
> Best regards,____
> 
> __ __
> 
> Julie & Marika____
> 
> __ __
> 
> *From: *GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-soi-tf-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Imran Hossen 
> <imran at eysoftbd.com <mailto:imran at eysoftbd.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 14:29
> *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org 
> <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>, "gnso-soi-tf at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-soi-tf at icann.org>" <gnso-soi-tf at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-soi-tf at icann.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 01 
> March 2023 at 14:00 UTC____
> 
> __ __
> 
> Hi,____
> 
> In terms of my representation of the BC?s position, I consulted with the 
> BC Chair and I believe we?re in agreement that the BC is strongly 
> opposed to this proposal.? Reasoning:____
> 
> ____
> 
>   * Contracted parties and their allies are positioning this as a
>     transparency issue.? That calls for some skepticism.____
>   * The BC is not in favor of eliminating a swath of ICANN participants
>     simply because they are ethically bound to not disclose their client
>     relationships.? There are myriad reasons ? not the least of which
>     would be the fact that disclosure of those being represented could
>     invite even more gaming into the ICANN system.? For example, an
>     attorney representing a new gTLD applicant could be compelled to
>     disclose his/her relationship with that applicant, inviting a
>     competing application.? That?s just one example.____
>   * Proponents of the rule change have suggested as a compromise that,
>     should a participant be in this position, he/she could just disclose
>     the identity of the client relationship to ICANN Org or the working
>     group chair.? That, frankly, is preposterous ? ICANN is a sieve of
>     information leakage in the first place, and ? further ? such
>     disclosure puts one or two individuals into a decision-making
>     position on that person?s participation.? ICANN is not in the
>     business of appointing people who can arbitrate others?
>     participation.____
>   * Interesting that the NCSG ? which is a vociferous proponent of
>     privacy ? is beating the drum for revealing representation. They
>     can?t have it both ways ? protect identities when they want and
>     don?t when they find it convenient.____
> 
> ____
> 
> __ __
> 
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 8:47?PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org 
> <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>> wrote:____
> 
>     Dear All,____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     Please see below the action items and brief notes from today?s SOI
>     Task Force meeting on Wednesday, 01 March 2023 at 14:00 UTC.? These
>     also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg
>     <https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg>.____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     Kind regards,____
> 
>     Marika and Julie____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     *GNSO SOI TF Meeting on Wednesday 01 March at 14:00 UTC*____
> 
>     **____
> 
>     *ACTION ITEMS: *____
> 
>      1. *SOI TF members to provide their position statements on the
>         exemption language by 24 March that can be included in the
>         report to the CCOICI. Staff to specifically request feedback
>         from IPSPC and BC as we have yet to hear from those groups.*____
>      2. *GNSO Secretariat staff to 1) circulate a Doodle poll to
>         schedule an informal meeting for Wednesday or Thursday at
>         ICANN76; 2) schedule a SOI TF meeting for Wednesday, 29 March at
>         1400 UTC.*____
>      3. *SOI TF members to suggest possible questions for ICANN Legal.*____
> 
>     **____
> 
>     *Notes: *____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     1. Welcome____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     2. Consider possible modification of exemption language whereby
>     represented individual or entity information is shared only with WG
>     leadership if exemption is invoked.? See:
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit__;!!PtGJab4!6DbG5NBCJY713AFh2289AXAqDrObS3KKfp1qtaYPoJRRvwFpeG9o-t4FgQK9SAnMgW9Fx2DTCZ1XBwFDZ4kheRqu3A$> ____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     If no support for 2: ____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     3. Positions on exemption language (awaiting input from ISPCP and
>     BC)____
> 
>     ____
> 
>       * RySG will have feedback soon ? it is an interesting compromise.
>         Also awaiting feedback from the registrars.____
>       * RrSG: A lot of questions of where these recommendations go from
>         here.? Still could be several concerns.____
>       * If this TF can?t come to consensus on language, it will go back
>         to the CCOICI and then to the Council.? The Council would vote
>         on changes to the Operating Procedures as a simply majority
>         vote.? Also is sent to the Board.____
>       * IPC: Appreciate the attempt at a compromise, but if you can?t
>         disclose then you can?t disclose to the leadership. ____
>       * If additional time is needed to consider, we should take it. 
>         Can also discuss at the ICANN76 Council meeting.? It would be
>         helpful for each group to state their views for the CCOICI to
>         consider.? Seems that this is the only point of disagreement in
>         the revisions to the SOI.____
>       * NCSG: Strong opposition to the existing text.____
>       * RySG: We will still develop some examples to be posted with the
>         SOI.____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     4. Possible SOI Pilot____
> 
>     ____
> 
>       * Not clear that this will be worth the effort and time if groups
>         won?t change their views.____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     5. Possible question to ICANN legal____
> 
>     ____
> 
>       * Important to frame the question and get agreement that this
>         would be helpful.____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     6. Confirm next steps____
> 
>     ____
> 
>       * Helpful to get statements of positions from TF member groups to
>         be included in the report to the CCOICI to consider.____
>       * Deadline by 24 March to submit their statements on the exemption
>         language.____
>       * Reconvene on 29 March at 1400 UTC to review the final report. ____
>       * No further public comment period is planned unless the CCOICI
>         makes changes.? Not sure what it would achieve at this point as
>         this already an issue that was called out in public comment.____
>       * RrSG: Consider putting this out for public comment again before
>         going to Council as people were not paying attention.____
>       * Staff: If we do a focused public comment we need to agree on
>         specific question(s) that would yield responses that could move
>         this forward.? Also there is the opportunity to socialize among
>         your groups at ICANN76 ? could set up an informal SOI TF meeting
>         in a sign-up room if available (no remote access).? Is there
>         interest in this?? Possibly but it would need to be later in the
>         week.? Secretariat to do a Doodle poll.____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     *ACTION ITEMS: *____
> 
>      1. *SOI TF members to provide their position statements on the
>         exemption language by 24 March that can be included in the
>         report to the CCOICI. Staff to specifically request feedback
>         from IPSPC and BC as we have yet to hear from those groups.*____
>      2. *GNSO Secretariat staff to 1) circulate a Doodle poll to
>         schedule an informal meeting for Wednesday or Thursday at
>         ICANN76; 2) schedule a SOI TF meeting for Wednesday, 29 March at
>         1400 UTC.*____
>      3. *SOI TF members to suggest possible questions for ICANN Legal.*____
> 
>     **____
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     GNSO-SOI-TF mailing list
>     GNSO-SOI-TF at icann.org <mailto:GNSO-SOI-TF at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-soi-tf
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-soi-tf>
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>     <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of
>     Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
>     <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.____
> 
> 
> 
> -- ____
> 
> *Imran Hossen*____
> 
> Managing Director?? | CEO____
> 
> *EyHost Ltd. *????????? | *EySoft IT Solution*____
> 
> *Skype:* imran891____
> 
> *Phone: *+8801619474927____
> 
> www.eysoftbd.com [eysoftbd.com] 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.eysoftbd.com__;!!PtGJab4!6DbG5NBCJY713AFh2289AXAqDrObS3KKfp1qtaYPoJRRvwFpeG9o-t4FgQK9SAnMgW9Fx2DTCZ1XBwFDZ4kNqGv0BQ$> | www.eyhost.biz [eyhost.biz] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.eyhost.biz__;!!PtGJab4!6DbG5NBCJY713AFh2289AXAqDrObS3KKfp1qtaYPoJRRvwFpeG9o-t4FgQK9SAnMgW9Fx2DTCZ1XBwFDZ4kVR0ff5w$>____
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-SOI-TF mailing list
> GNSO-SOI-TF at icann.org <mailto:GNSO-SOI-TF at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-soi-tf 
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-soi-tf>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 
> <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service 
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc