From Kathy at KathyKleiman.com  Thu Aug  1 00:08:18 2024
From: Kathy at KathyKleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 17:08:18 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Singulars / Plurals
In-Reply-To: <CAM8DdeUUmzAonGNbGDFHDNWnNA6XFouw-wS9axGeQ_icAjvdvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <PH8PR06MB9127E366C035D709386B64FEC3B72@PH8PR06MB9127.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAM8DdeUm6Qj8T=Yf_eV+sz0KngWc++JSidfrSZD5bnSaks303A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM8DdeUUmzAonGNbGDFHDNWnNA6XFouw-wS9axGeQ_icAjvdvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b1bdd057-bcbd-48d7-88da-b5d43c77a437@KathyKleiman.com>

Tomslin, Your words below are wise. The Singular and Plural group, 
despite all of its extra time, is having a difficult time. Just when we 
think we have decided something and come to agreement, another 
"Strawman" emerges. We have gone through 4 or 5 by now.

And the same thing happened last night - where a very different (and 
very disturbing) new Strawman emerged.

Best, Kathy

On 7/29/2024 7:50 PM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
> FYI
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Tomslin Samme-Nlar* <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 09:47
> Subject: Re: [council] Singulars / Plurals
> To: Paul McGrady <paul at elstermcgrady.com>
> Cc: GNOS Council Mailing List (council at gnso.icann.org) 
> <council at gnso.icann.org>, gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>
>
> Thanks for sharing, Paul.
>
> I like the optimism, however, in my opinion, I think there is benefit 
> for the wider council to discuss the final proposal from the small 
> team+ before voting on it. Considering how heated this particular 
> topic has been in the small team+, it'll be good for the council to 
> also know whether the recommendations enjoy the full consensus of the 
> small team or otherwise and if not, what level of consensus was 
> achieved as required by the updated Small team Assignment form.
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 07:36, Paul McGrady via council 
> <council at icann.org> wrote:
>
>     All,
>
>     Here is a placeholder motion for the work of the Small Team + on
>     this issue: Motion - SubPro Supp Rec Singular/Plural - Google Docs
>     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ynihMgb5yrdf4agtbqtP9x77LX73q6_Mxj1tzZD47Rg/edit>?
>     We have a team deadline of this Friday at end of business to get a
>     final version complete (or not, if we can?t get there).? I will
>     get that turned around to Council ASAP so that we all have as much
>     time as possible to consider it before next Thursday. Hopefully,
>     that all goes timely and well and we can put this in the rearview
>     mirror on Thursday.? If not, we may need to have this be a
>     discussion on Thursday and a prompt email vote thereafter. We?ll
>     see.? I?m submitting it this was in order to maximize optionality.
>
>     By copy of this email, I am asking Staff to amend this item from a
>     Discussion to a Vote, because I am a diehard optimist.? Thanks
>     all!? Stay tuned.
>
>     Best,
>
>     Paul
>
>     	
>
>     *PaulMcGrady*
>
>     Partner
>
>     Elster & McGrady
>
>     3847 N. Lincoln Avenue
>
>     Second Floor
>
>     Chicago, IL 60613
>
>     Office Direct: +1 (312) 515-4422
>
>     paul at elstermcgrady.com <mailto:paul at elstermcgrady.com>
>
>     *www.elstermcgrady.com <http://www.elstermcgrady.com/>*
>
>     Download Contact Information and Read Bio
>     <https://linqapp.com/paul_mcgrady?r=link>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     council mailing list -- council at icann.org
>     To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave at icann.org
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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/20240731/7a7fb61d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 55803 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240731/7a7fb61d/attachment.jpg>

From pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com  Thu Aug  1 15:36:15 2024
From: pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Pedro_de_Perdig=C3=A3o_Lana?=)
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:36:15 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Fwd: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning]
 Updated: INPUT NEEDED ICANN81 Community Session Topic by Wednesday 07
 August 2024
In-Reply-To: <1c39a5a9-5589-4fcd-bdb2-3777ddba1890@Julf.com>
References: <599D1663-3954-40F4-A3F1-8308B4240167@icann.org>
 <1c39a5a9-5589-4fcd-bdb2-3777ddba1890@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <CAGSP6RRC49hjW3Y2OLp8gsjTGSLJstJZKZyDDQNYWfCFneEZEw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

Would it be possible to merge proposals 1 and 3? ALAC's proposal apparently
overlaps quite a bit with the "Geopolitical, Legislative, and Regulatory
Developments Update", and ccNSO's seems a bit repetitive, even if the idea
is exactly to consolidate what is being built during the year. Maybe
joining those (something along the lines of "ICANN's role towards new
Internet Infrastructures being proposed nationally and internationally")
would result in a very interesting session.

IPC's proposal is too specific, aiming to bring a concern of their
constituency to be debated by the whole community, and RrSG is too wide (it
looks more like a proposal for an outreach video than a Community Session)

*Pedro de Perdig?o Lana*
Advogado - OAB/PR 90.600 <https://www.nic.br/>,  Pesquisador (GEDAI/UFPR
<https://www.gedai.com.br/>)
Doutorando em Direito (UFPR), Mestre em Direito Empresarial (UCoimbra),
Membro da Coordena??o - NCUC (ICANN) <https://www.ncuc.org/>, ISOC BR
<https://isoc.org.br/>, IODA <https://ioda.org.br/> e CC Brasil
<https://br.creativecommons.net/>.
Essa mensagem ? restrita ao remetente e destinat?rio(s). Se recebida por
engano, favor responder informando o erro.


Em qua., 31 de jul. de 2024 ?s 09:28, Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC <
ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> escreveu:

>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:        [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Updated: INPUT NEEDED
> ICANN81 Community Session Topic by Wednesday 07 August 2024
> Date:   Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:51:07 +0000
> From:   Nathalie Peregrine via SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning
> <soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>
> Reply-To:       Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
> To:     soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
> <soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>
>
>
>
> **With additional RrSG topic added, and extended deadline 7^th August
> 20:00 UTC, thank you to Alejandra and Justine for the suggestion!**
>
> Dear all,
>
> The deadline for topic suggestions regarding the ICANN81 Community
> Session has now passed. You may have seen three proposals circulated on
> this mailing list. I have posted them below in order of submission.
>
> In order to finalize the choice of topic, we would like to invite ICANN
> community leaders  to submit their choices via the mailing list by
> responding to these two questions:
>
>   1. Which topic is your group most interested in? /(Please bear in mind
>      that ?none? is also an acceptable response)/
>   2. Would this topic engage your group to the point of taking part in
>      the organization of the session?
>
> Kindly respond by _Wednesday 7 August 2024 2000 UTC._
>
> __
>
> Thank you all!
>
> **
>
>   1. *ccNSO Proposal*
>
> The ccNSO Council suggests a plenary session during the ICANN 81 meeting
> to be held in Istanbul in November 2024, on the topic of the WSIS+20
> Review and what ICANN (the community and the organisation) can do to
> help advertise and preserve ICANN?s multi-stakeholder model, and the
> broader multi-stakeholder internet governance approach, during the Review.
>
> ICANN is working with the community to reflect on lessons learned in the
> GDC process during 2023-2024, and developing a strategy for the role
> ICANN and its community can play during the WSIS+20 review in 2024 and
> 2025. By the time ICANN81 rolls around, this strategy should be well
> developed, and it will be time to further mobilise the ICANN community
> around the role it can play in this important work.
>
> The main outcomes of such a session should be that:
>
>    * The ICANN community is well informed about the strategic approach to
>      the WSIS+20 Review, and what role individual organisations and
>      communities can play
>    * The ICANN community is mobilised to play the roles they can play as
>      part of the Review
>
> A secondary outcome would be the sharing of greater insight about where
> the WSIS+20 review is at, though this can be covered in the Geopolitical
> session.
>
>   2. *IPC Proposal*
>
> _Working Title:_Reviewing ICANN?s Accountability Mechanisms
>
> _Aim:_  To hold a general discussion across the community about the
> ICANN Accountability Mechanisms, particularly the Request for
> Reconsideration (RFR) and Independent Review Process (IRP) in order to
> elicit views on whether:
>
>    * these mechanisms are fit for purpose
>    * there are unintended outcomes resulting from the manner in which
>      these mechanisms are set out in the Bylaws.  For example:
>        o do the standing and grounds requirements for either mechanism
>          serve to exclude legitimate access by those that the community
>          intended to have access, such as SO, AC, SG and Cs
>        o Are these mechanisms available to any classes of complainant who
>          were not intended by the community to have access to them
>        o Is the EC IRP process sufficiently clear and unambiguous.
>    * there are concerns sufficient to warrant review and potential
>      revision of the relevant Bylaws provisions and, if so, whether there
>      is a sufficient support from the community to convene a CCWG to work
>      on this.
>
> _Brief Background:_
>
> On a number of occasions recently, including in meetings with the GNSO
> Council, ICANN Board Members have expressed the view that the IRP, as
> presently drafted, could be used by classes of potential claimant who
> were never intended to have access to this mechanism, such as an
> unsuccessful respondent to an ICANN RFP or tender process.  Board
> Members have expressed the desire for a community discussion on this.
>
> At the same time, the GNSO?s Intellectual Property Constituency recently
> brought a RFR against a proposal by the Board that would have had the
> effect of changing a Fundamental Bylaws without following the
> Bylaws-mandated process for doing so.  The IPC?s RFR was summarily
> dismissed as failing to demonstrate that the IPC was harmed by such a
> Board action.
>
> The intent of this session would not be to publicly debate the IPC?s
> ongoing disagreement with ICANN over the RFR, which is currently in the
> Co-Operative Engagement Process.  Rather, we believe that both examples
> demonstrate that there are concerns, both on ICANN Org?s side and on the
> Community side, with these important accountability mechanisms which
> were revised as a result of the cross community work on Accountability
> in the context of the IANA Transition.  We believe this is an
> appropriate time for a discussion on whether the mechanisms meet the
> community?s expectations, or whether they would benefit from a more
> formal review and revision.
>
> **
>
> *3) At-Large/ ALAC Proposal*
>
>
> _Working Title_: Shifting Paradigms: Multistakeholderism, Geopolitics,
> International Law, and New Internet Infrastructures.
>
> _Objective/Aims_:
> To explore the intersections of geopolitics, international law, and
> emerging internet infrastructures. Key topics include the reshaping of
> the multistakeholder model, implications for new internet
> infrastructures, and data governance. The discussion will reference the
> 2024 United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy,
> EU's GDPR, the AI Act, and NIS2. This session is crucial for end users,
> regulators, policymakers, technologists, legal experts, academics, and
> other stakeholders in the Internet governance community. It emphasizes
> the link between infrastructure governance and data management from the
> end user perspective, highlighting the importance of user-centric
> approaches in shaping the future of internet infrastructures.
>
> _Proposed Speakers_:
>
>    - Vint Cerf, Internet Pioneer
>    - Leon Sanchez, ICANN Board Member
>    - Jorge Cancio, Deputy Head of the International Relations Team at
> the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM); GAC Switzerland
>    - Pari Esfandiari, ALAC/EURALO, Global TechnoPolitics Forum
>    - Susan Chalmers, Internet Policy Specialist, US Department of
> Commerce, NTIA
>    - Berna Ak?al? G?r, Lecturer, CCLS Queen Mary University of London,
> Associate Research Fellow at UNU-CRIS Digital Cluster
>    - John Crain, ICANN SVP & Chief Technology Officer
>
> _Moderator:_ Joanna Kulesza, ALAC Liaison to the GAC
>
> _Scoping Questions_:
>
>   1.   How should the multistakeholder model evolve to accommodate new
>      internet infrastructures and the shift towards them in governance?
>   2.   What are the primary governance challenges posed by the
>      development of new internet infrastructures and governance models?
>   3.   How do existing regulatory frameworks like GDPR, the AI Act, and
>      NIS2 address the challenges and opportunities presented by new
>      internet infrastructures and respective governance models?
>
>
> _Expected Outcomes_:
>
>
> - A comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities
> presented by new internet infrastructures and the regulatory shift
> towards them - MSM implications.
> - Insight into how existing regulatory frameworks, including the MSM,
> can adapt to these emerging technologies.
> - Enhanced dialogue among stakeholders on the future of multistakeholder
> Internet governance.
>
>   4. *RrSG Proposal*
>
> **
>
> RrSG Proposal for ICANN81 Plenary Session: The Registrant?s Journey
>
> Follow along with our hero Sophia Exemplar as she begins her Registrant
> Journey and encounters ICANN policies in the registration and use of her
> new domain name to create a fan website for the 1960s TV show
> /Thunderbirds/. Along the way, she?ll encounter choices for registration
> data submission and publication, phishing emails and deceptive notices,
> and renewal reminders. She?ll consider moving to a new registrar, or
> even giving the domain name away to a friend, and more. Will Sophia?s
> journey be a success? We?ll poll the meeting attendees to help her
> decide what to do at each important step in the process.
>
> /This session takes attendees through important aspects of the domain
> name lifecycle, covering registration data collection requirements,
> choices around data masking or publication, contacts sent to the domain
> owner, and processes including registrar transfer and change of
> ownership data. Attendees will gain a greater understanding of the
> industry landscape and domain owner experience. /
>
> **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240801/168768ca/attachment.htm>

From julf at Julf.com  Thu Aug  1 17:36:28 2024
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:36:28 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] INPUT NEEDED ICANN81 Community Session Topic
In-Reply-To: <36B6B3A2-3E9C-480E-8AB6-2B4581492CA4@icann.org>
References: <36B6B3A2-3E9C-480E-8AB6-2B4581492CA4@icann.org>
Message-ID: <b3958056-2381-490d-9bac-4a2cd6298ee8@Julf.com>

Opinions welcome.

	Julf



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Re: INPUT NEEDED ICANN81 
Community Session Topic by Wednesday 07 August 2024
Date: 	Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:02:44 +0000
From: 	Nathalie Peregrine via SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning 
<soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>
Reply-To: 	Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
To: 	soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org 
<soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>



Hello all,

Thank you to those who provided input!

You will be shortly be receiving calendar invitations for a second 
Production Call next week.

In order to ensure the Production Call closes on an agreement on the 
topic for the Community Session, please find below the proposed agenda 
and relevant action items to prepare for the call.

*Agenda*

  1. Q&A on Community Topic proposals
  2. Vote via hands raised in Zoom (please note if unable to attend, it
     will be possible to vote via the mailing list as suggested in my
     previous email).

*Action Items for all:*

   * Kindly socialize the below topics to your community members as soon
     as possible encouraging them to submit feedback in the form of
     comments or questions.
   * Please circulate the comments and questions ahead of time on the
     planning mailing list in order for the Q&A to be as efficient as
     possible.
Looking forward to hearing from you all on the this thread as well as on 
the call next week!

Kind regards,

Nathalie

**

  1. *ccNSO Proposal*

The ccNSO Council suggests a plenary session during the ICANN 81 meeting 
to be held in Istanbul in November 2024, on the topic of the WSIS+20 
Review and what ICANN (the community and the organisation) can do to 
help advertise and preserve ICANN?s multi-stakeholder model, and the 
broader multi-stakeholder internet governance approach, during the Review.

ICANN is working with the community to reflect on lessons learned in the 
GDC process during 2023-2024, and developing a strategy for the role 
ICANN and its community can play during the WSIS+20 review in 2024 and 
2025. By the time ICANN81 rolls around, this strategy should be well 
developed, and it will be time to further mobilise the ICANN community 
around the role it can play in this important work.

The main outcomes of such a session should be that:

   * The ICANN community is well informed about the strategic approach to
     the WSIS+20 Review, and what role individual organisations and
     communities can play
   * The ICANN community is mobilised to play the roles they can play as
     part of the Review

A secondary outcome would be the sharing of greater insight about where 
the WSIS+20 review is at, though this can be covered in the Geopolitical 
session.

  2. *IPC Proposal*

_Working Title:_Reviewing ICANN?s Accountability Mechanisms

_Aim:_? To hold a general discussion across the community about the 
ICANN Accountability Mechanisms, particularly the Request for 
Reconsideration (RFR) and Independent Review Process (IRP) in order to 
elicit views on whether:

   * these mechanisms are fit for purpose
   * there are unintended outcomes resulting from the manner in which
     these mechanisms are set out in the Bylaws.? For example:
       o do the standing and grounds requirements for either mechanism
         serve to exclude legitimate access by those that the community
         intended to have access, such as SO, AC, SG and Cs
       o Are these mechanisms available to any classes of complainant who
         were not intended by the community to have access to them
       o Is the EC IRP process sufficiently clear and unambiguous.
   * there are concerns sufficient to warrant review and potential
     revision of the relevant Bylaws provisions and, if so, whether there
     is a sufficient support from the community to convene a CCWG to work
     on this.

_Brief Background:_

On a number of occasions recently, including in meetings with the GNSO 
Council, ICANN Board Members have expressed the view that the IRP, as 
presently drafted, could be used by classes of potential claimant who 
were never intended to have access to this mechanism, such as an 
unsuccessful respondent to an ICANN RFP or tender process. ?Board 
Members have expressed the desire for a community discussion on this.

At the same time, the GNSO?s Intellectual Property Constituency recently 
brought a RFR against a proposal by the Board that would have had the 
effect of changing a Fundamental Bylaws without following the 
Bylaws-mandated process for doing so.? The IPC?s RFR was summarily 
dismissed as failing to demonstrate that the IPC was harmed by such a 
Board action.

The intent of this session would not be to publicly debate the IPC?s 
ongoing disagreement with ICANN over the RFR, which is currently in the 
Co-Operative Engagement Process.? Rather, we believe that both examples 
demonstrate that there are concerns, both on ICANN Org?s side and on the 
Community side, with these important accountability mechanisms which 
were revised as a result of the cross community work on Accountability 
in the context of the IANA Transition.? We believe this is an 
appropriate time for a discussion on whether the mechanisms meet the 
community?s expectations, or whether they would benefit from a more 
formal review and revision.

**

*3) At-Large/ ALAC Proposal*


_Working Title_: Shifting Paradigms: Multistakeholderism, Geopolitics, 
International Law, and New Internet Infrastructures.

_Objective/Aims_:
To explore the intersections of geopolitics, international law, and 
emerging internet infrastructures. Key topics include the reshaping of 
the multistakeholder model, implications for new internet 
infrastructures, and data governance. The discussion will reference the 
2024 United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy, 
EU's GDPR, the AI Act, and NIS2.?This session is crucial for end users, 
regulators, policymakers, technologists, legal experts, academics, and 
other stakeholders in the Internet governance community. It emphasizes 
the link between infrastructure governance and data management from the 
end user perspective, highlighting the importance of user-centric 
approaches in shaping the future of internet infrastructures.

_Proposed Speakers_:

  ?- Vint Cerf, Internet Pioneer
  ?- Leon Sanchez, ICANN Board Member
  ?- Jorge Cancio, Deputy Head of the International Relations Team at 
the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM); GAC Switzerland
  ?- Pari Esfandiari, ALAC/EURALO, Global TechnoPolitics Forum
  ?- Susan Chalmers, Internet Policy Specialist, US Department of 
Commerce, NTIA
  ?- Berna Ak?al? G?r, Lecturer, CCLS Queen Mary University of London, 
Associate Research Fellow at UNU-CRIS Digital Cluster
  ?- John Crain, ICANN SVP & Chief Technology Officer

_Moderator:_?Joanna Kulesza, ALAC Liaison to the GAC

_Scoping Questions_:

  1.  ?How should the multistakeholder model evolve to accommodate new
     internet infrastructures and the shift towards them in governance?
  2.  ?What are the primary governance challenges posed by the
     development of new internet infrastructures and governance models?
  3.  ?How do existing regulatory frameworks like GDPR, the AI Act, and
     NIS2 address the challenges and opportunities presented by new
     internet infrastructures and respective governance models?


_Expected Outcomes_:


- A comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities 
presented by new internet infrastructures and the regulatory shift 
towards them - MSM implications.
- Insight into how existing regulatory frameworks, including the MSM, 
can adapt to these emerging technologies.
- Enhanced dialogue among stakeholders on the future of multistakeholder 
Internet governance.

  4. *RrSG Proposal*

**

RrSG Proposal for ICANN81 Plenary Session: The Registrant?s Journey

Follow along with our hero Sophia Exemplar as she begins her Registrant 
Journey and encounters ICANN policies in the registration and use of her 
new domain name to create a fan website for the 1960s TV show 
/Thunderbirds/. Along the way, she?ll encounter choices for registration 
data submission and publication, phishing emails and deceptive notices, 
and renewal reminders. She?ll consider moving to a new registrar, or 
even giving the domain name away to a friend, and more. Will Sophia?s 
journey be a success? We?ll poll the meeting attendees to help her 
decide what to do at each important step in the process.

/This session takes attendees through important aspects of the domain 
name lifecycle, covering registration data collection requirements, 
choices around data masking or publication, contacts sent to the domain 
owner, and processes including registrar transfer and change of 
ownership data. Attendees will gain a greater understanding of the 
industry landscape and domain owner experience. /

**



From julf at Julf.com  Thu Aug  1 18:28:38 2024
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 17:28:38 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Re:
 [Gac-leadership] Re: INPUT NEEDED ICANN81 Community Session Topic by
 Wednesday 07 August 2024
In-Reply-To: <CAB_wD0Rn3cX2i5r6r72H0AOLcFvo=fB6HtqKHOA2eYngdxO6FA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB_wD0Rn3cX2i5r6r72H0AOLcFvo=fB6HtqKHOA2eYngdxO6FA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7c7153ec-1dc9-4f9c-86c7-7a34ac82a272@Julf.com>




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Re: [Gac-leadership] Re: 
INPUT NEEDED ICANN81 Community Session Topic by Wednesday 07 August 2024
Date: 	Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:47:04 -0400
From: 	Nicolas Caballero via SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning 
<soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>
Reply-To: 	Nicolas Caballero <nicustkd at gmail.com>
To: 	Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>, Nathalie 
Peregrine via SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning 
<soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>



Hello Nathalie, dear colleagues,

Thank you for this; I hope this email finds you well.

As regarding proposal nr. 3, please do not include Susan Chalmers (NTIA 
and GAC Rep USA) on the list, as according to her, she was never asked 
or agreed, and as a matter of fact the US delegation does not support 
this proposal.

On the other hand, regarding GAC Switzerland (Jorge Cancio), I haven?t 
had the chance to directly talk to him, given the fact that he is still 
on vacation (just in case, in order to avoid any confusion) so as to 
make sure he:
a) was actually asked about this, for sure; and
b) there is full support from the Swiss Government.

Having said that, I do not mean the GAC officially supports - or not - 
any of the proposals kindly sent, until we can get together and decide 
on the topic with the respective GAC Representatives.

Thank you again.
Best regards,

Nico


Nicolas G. Caballero
GAC Chair
ICANN

El jue, 1 ago 2024 a las 5:33, Nathalie Peregrine via 
SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning via gac-leadership 
(<gac-leadership at icann.org <mailto:gac-leadership at icann.org>>) escribi?:

     Hello all,____

     __ __

     Thank you to those who provided input!____

     __ __

     You will be shortly be receiving calendar invitations for a second
     Production Call next week. ____

     __ __

     In order to ensure the Production Call closes on an agreement on the
     topic for the Community Session, please find below the proposed
     agenda and relevant action items to prepare for the call.____

     __ __

     *Agenda____*

      1. Q&A on Community Topic proposals____
      2. Vote via hands raised in Zoom (please note if unable to attend,
         it will be possible to vote via the mailing list as suggested in
         my previous email).____

     __ __

     *Action Items for all:____*

       * Kindly socialize the below topics to your community members as
         soon as possible encouraging them to submit feedback in the form
         of comments or questions. ____
       * Please circulate the comments and questions ahead of time on the
         planning mailing list in order for the Q&A to be as efficient as
         possible. ____

     __ __

     Looking forward to hearing from you all on the this thread as well
     as on the call next week!____

     __ __

     Kind regards,____

     __ __

     Nathalie____

     __ __

     *__ __*

      1. *ccNSO Proposal____*

     The ccNSO Council suggests a plenary session during the ICANN 81
     meeting to be held in Istanbul in November 2024, on the topic of the
     WSIS+20 Review and what ICANN (the community and the organisation)
     can do to help advertise and preserve ICANN?s multi-stakeholder
     model, and the broader multi-stakeholder internet governance
     approach, during the Review.

     ICANN is working with the community to reflect on lessons learned in
     the GDC process during 2023-2024, and developing a strategy for the
     role ICANN and its community can play during the WSIS+20 review in
     2024 and 2025. By the time ICANN81 rolls around, this strategy
     should be well developed, and it will be time to further mobilise
     the ICANN community around the role it can play in this important work.

     The main outcomes of such a session should be that:____

       * The ICANN community is well informed about the strategic
         approach to the WSIS+20 Review, and what role individual
         organisations and communities can play____
       * The ICANN community is mobilised to play the roles they can play
         as part of the Review____

     A secondary outcome would be the sharing of greater insight about
     where the WSIS+20 review is at, though this can be covered in the
     Geopolitical session.____

     __ __

     __ __

      2. *IPC Proposal____*

     _Working Title:_Reviewing ICANN?s Accountability Mechanisms____

     ____

     _Aim:_? To hold a general discussion across the community about the
     ICANN Accountability Mechanisms, particularly the Request for
     Reconsideration (RFR) and Independent Review Process (IRP) in order
     to elicit views on whether:____

       * these mechanisms are fit for purpose____
       * there are unintended outcomes resulting from the manner in which
         these mechanisms are set out in the Bylaws.? For example: ____
           o do the standing and grounds requirements for either
             mechanism serve to exclude legitimate access by those that
             the community intended to have access, such as SO, AC, SG
             and Cs ____
           o Are these mechanisms available to any classes of complainant
             who were not intended by the community to have access to
             them____
           o Is the EC IRP process sufficiently clear and unambiguous.____
       * there are concerns sufficient to warrant review and potential
         revision of the relevant Bylaws provisions and, if so, whether
         there is a sufficient support from the community to convene a
         CCWG to work on this.____

     ____

     _Brief Background:_____

     On a number of occasions recently, including in meetings with the
     GNSO Council, ICANN Board Members have expressed the view that the
     IRP, as presently drafted, could be used by classes of potential
     claimant who were never intended to have access to this mechanism,
     such as an unsuccessful respondent to an ICANN RFP or tender
     process.? Board Members have expressed the desire for a community
     discussion on this.____

     ____

     At the same time, the GNSO?s Intellectual Property Constituency
     recently brought a RFR against a proposal by the Board that would
     have had the effect of changing a Fundamental Bylaws without
     following the Bylaws-mandated process for doing so.? The IPC?s RFR
     was summarily dismissed as failing to demonstrate that the IPC was
     harmed by such a Board action.____

     ____

     The intent of this session would not be to publicly debate the IPC?s
     ongoing disagreement with ICANN over the RFR, which is currently in
     the Co-Operative Engagement Process.? Rather, we believe that both
     examples demonstrate that there are concerns, both on ICANN Org?s
     side and on the Community side, with these important accountability
     mechanisms which were revised as a result of the cross community
     work on Accountability in the context of the IANA Transition.? We
     believe this is an appropriate time for a discussion on whether the
     mechanisms meet the community?s expectations, or whether they would
     benefit from a more formal review and revision.____

     __ __

     *__ __*

     *3) At-Large/ ALAC Proposal____*


     _Working Title_: Shifting Paradigms: Multistakeholderism,
     Geopolitics, International Law, and New Internet Infrastructures.

     _Objective/Aims_:
     To explore the intersections of geopolitics, international law, and
     emerging internet infrastructures. Key topics include the reshaping
     of the multistakeholder model, implications for new internet
     infrastructures, and data governance. The discussion will reference
     the 2024 United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy
     Strategy, EU's GDPR, the AI Act, and NIS2.?This session is crucial
     for end users, regulators, policymakers, technologists, legal
     experts, academics, and other stakeholders in the Internet
     governance community. It emphasizes the link between infrastructure
     governance and data management from the end user perspective,
     highlighting the importance of user-centric approaches in shaping
     the future of internet infrastructures.

     _Proposed Speakers_:____

      ?- Vint Cerf, Internet Pioneer
      ?- Leon Sanchez, ICANN Board Member
      ?- Jorge Cancio, Deputy Head of the International Relations Team at
     the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM); GAC Switzerland
      ?- Pari Esfandiari, ALAC/EURALO, Global TechnoPolitics Forum
      ?- Susan Chalmers, Internet Policy Specialist, US Department of
     Commerce, NTIA
      ?- Berna Ak?al? G?r, Lecturer, CCLS Queen Mary University of
     London, Associate Research Fellow at UNU-CRIS Digital Cluster
      ?- John Crain, ICANN SVP & Chief Technology Officer

     _Moderator:_?Joanna Kulesza, ALAC Liaison to the GAC

     _Scoping Questions_:____

      1.  ?How should the multistakeholder model evolve to accommodate
         new internet infrastructures and the shift towards them in
         governance?____
      2.  ?What are the primary governance challenges posed by the
         development of new internet infrastructures and governance
         models?____
      3.  ?How do existing regulatory frameworks like GDPR, the AI Act,
         and NIS2 address the challenges and opportunities presented by
         new internet infrastructures and respective governance models?____


     _Expected Outcomes_:____


     - A comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities
     presented by new internet infrastructures and the regulatory shift
     towards them - MSM implications.
     - Insight into how existing regulatory frameworks, including the
     MSM, can adapt to these emerging technologies.
     - Enhanced dialogue among stakeholders on the future of
     multistakeholder Internet governance.____

      4. *RrSG Proposal____*

     *__ __*

     RrSG Proposal for ICANN81 Plenary Session: The Registrant?s Journey____

     ____

     Follow along with our hero Sophia Exemplar as she begins her
     Registrant Journey and encounters ICANN policies in the registration
     and use of her new domain name to create a fan website for the 1960s
     TV show /Thunderbirds/. Along the way, she?ll encounter choices for
     registration data submission and publication, phishing emails and
     deceptive notices, and renewal reminders. She?ll consider moving to
     a new registrar, or even giving the domain name away to a friend,
     and more. Will Sophia?s journey be a success? We?ll poll the meeting
     attendees to help her decide what to do at each important step in
     the process.____

     ____

     /This session takes attendees through important aspects of the
     domain name lifecycle, covering registration data collection
     requirements, choices around data masking or publication, contacts
     sent to the domain owner, and processes including registrar transfer
     and change of ownership data. Attendees will gain a greater
     understanding of the industry landscape and domain owner experience.
     /____

     *__ __*

     __ __

     _______________________________________________
     SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list --
     soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
     <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>
     To unsubscribe send an email to
     soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning-leave at icann.org
     <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning-leave at icann.org>

     _______________________________________________
     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._______________________________________________
     gac-leadership mailing list -- gac-leadership at icann.org
     <mailto:gac-leadership at icann.org>
     To unsubscribe send an email to gac-leadership-leave at icann.org
     <mailto:gac-leadership-leave at icann.org>

     _______________________________________________
     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.
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list -- soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning-leave at icann.org

_______________________________________________
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.

From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Fri Aug  2 04:37:03 2024
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 11:37:03 +1000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Volunteers Needed for Open Public
 Comments
In-Reply-To: <379608529.36039.1722513945818.JavaMail.zimbra@forum.org.ng>
References: <CAM8DdeWiV39vXv-vhkt=TGz4vrHjK1xhOCAkX=TRjYKr6Xapew@mail.gmail.com>
 <379608529.36039.1722513945818.JavaMail.zimbra@forum.org.ng>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeUqw4bT0MuDMKdMDe+m5hRs+iK3z-kPYydJqKjcJYGwVg@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you, everyone who has volunteered so far. I'll be sending you
separate emails based on the topics you volunteered for, so that you can
start drafting the comments.

Warmly,
Tomslin



On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 22:05, Adewale Adedokun <wale at forum.org.ng> wrote:

> Hi Tomslin,
> I am happy to join on the
>
>    1. Draft ICANN Strategic Plan and Operating Plan Framework for FY26-30
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wale
>
> E.A. Adedokun, PhD.
> Professor of Computer Engineering.
> Event Coordinator, Nigeria Network Operators' Group
> wale at nog.ng
> wale at forum.org.ng
> wale at abu.edu.ng
> +234-8037035811.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Tomslin Samme-Nlar" <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
> *To: *"NCUC-discuss" <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>, "ncsg-discuss" <
> NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
> *Cc: *"Sam Lanfranco" <samlanfranco at gmail.com>, "ncsg-pc" <
> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> *Sent: *Monday, 29 July, 2024 13:43:32
> *Subject: *[NCUC-DISCUSS] Volunteers Needed for Open Public Comments
>
> Dear members,
>
> ICANN org is seeking input on a number of open public comment proceedings.
> Let me know if you'd like to volunteer on any one of them. The open public
> comments are:
>
>    1. The Preliminary Issue Report on Latin Script Diacritics.
>    2.
>       - *Link*:
>       https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/preliminary-issue-report-on-latin-script-diacritics-18-07-202
>       .
>    - *Deadline*: 30 days remaining. Closes on 27 August.
>    3. Independent Review Process - Implementation Oversight Team
>    (IRP-IOT) ? Proposed updates to the IRP Supplementary Procedure.
>    4.
>       - *Link*:
>       https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/irp-iot-proposed-updates-to-the-irp-supplementary-procedures-03-07-2024
>       - *Deadline*: 50 days remaining. Closes on 16 Sep 2024
>    5. Draft ICANN Strategic Plan and Operating Plan Framework for FY26-30
>    6.
>       - *Link*:
>       https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/draft-icann-strategic-plan-and-operating-plan-framework-for-fy26-30-23-07-2024
>       - *Deadline*: 51 days remaining. 17 Sep 2024
>    7. Proposed Language for the Next Round Applicant Support Program and
>    Registry Service Provider Evaluation Program Terms and Conditions. It is
>    worth noting that this one has a non-extendable comment period. For those
>    interested in commenting on this, I believe @Sam Lanfranco
>    <samlanfranco at gmail.com> can help with his experience participating in
>    the SubPro IRT.
>    8.
>       - *Link*:
>       https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-language-for-the-next-round-applicant-support-program-and-registry-service-provider-evaluation-program-terms-and-conditions-24-07-2024
>       - *Deadline*: 26 days remaining. 23 Aug 2024.
>
>
> You can find previous NCSG comments here:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2024
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240802/8aeaf66b/attachment.htm>

From julf at Julf.com  Sat Aug  3 11:16:43 2024
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 10:16:43 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Fwd: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning]
 Updated: INPUT NEEDED ICANN81 Community Session Topic by Wednesday 07
 August 2024
In-Reply-To: <CAGSP6RRC49hjW3Y2OLp8gsjTGSLJstJZKZyDDQNYWfCFneEZEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <599D1663-3954-40F4-A3F1-8308B4240167@icann.org>
 <1c39a5a9-5589-4fcd-bdb2-3777ddba1890@Julf.com>
 <CAGSP6RRC49hjW3Y2OLp8gsjTGSLJstJZKZyDDQNYWfCFneEZEw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bae79088-2ee2-40b2-97ba-95564ed2f955@Julf.com>

Hi Pedro - good comments. I can try to suggest some sort of merger of
1 and 3, but not sure what is possible at this point.

	Julf


On 01/08/2024 14:36, Pedro de Perdig?o Lana wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Would it be possible to merge proposals 1 and 3? ALAC's proposal 
> apparently overlaps quite a bit with the "Geopolitical, Legislative, and 
> Regulatory Developments Update", and ccNSO's seems a bit repetitive, 
> even if the idea is exactly to consolidate what is being built during 
> the year. Maybe joining those (something along the lines of "ICANN's 
> role towards new Internet Infrastructures being proposed nationally and 
> internationally") would result in a very interesting session.
> 
> IPC's proposal is too specific, aiming to bring a concern of their 
> constituency to be debated by the whole community, and RrSG is too wide 
> (it looks more like a proposal for an outreach video than a Community 
> Session)
> 
> *Pedro de Perdig?o Lana*
> Advogado - OAB/PR 90.600 <https://www.nic.br/>, Pesquisador (GEDAI/UFPR 
> <https://www.gedai.com.br/>)
> Doutorando em Direito (UFPR), Mestre em Direito Empresarial (UCoimbra),
> Membro da Coordena??o - NCUC (ICANN) <https://www.ncuc.org/>, ISOC BR 
> <https://isoc.org.br/>, IODA <https://ioda.org.br/> e CC Brasil 
> <https://br.creativecommons.net/>.
> Essa mensagem ? restrita ao remetente e destinat?rio(s). Se recebida por 
> engano, favor responder informando o erro.
> 
> 
> Em qua., 31 de jul. de 2024 ?s 09:28, Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC 
> <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> escreveu:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     -------- Forwarded Message --------
>     Subject:? ? ? ? [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Updated: INPUT
>     NEEDED
>     ICANN81 Community Session Topic by Wednesday 07 August 2024
>     Date:? ?Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:51:07 +0000
>     From:? ?Nathalie Peregrine via SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning
>     <soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
>     <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>>
>     Reply-To:? ? ? ?Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
>     <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>>
>     To: soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
>     <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>
>     <soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
>     <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>>
> 
> 
> 
>     **With additional RrSG topic added, and extended deadline 7^th August
>     20:00 UTC, thank you to Alejandra and Justine for the suggestion!**
> 
>     Dear all,
> 
>     The deadline for topic suggestions regarding the ICANN81 Community
>     Session has now passed. You may have seen three proposals circulated on
>     this mailing list. I have posted them below in order of submission.
> 
>     In order to finalize the choice of topic, we would like to invite ICANN
>     community leaders ?to submit their choices via the mailing list by
>     responding to these two questions:
> 
>      ? 1. Which topic is your group most interested in? /(Please bear in
>     mind
>      ? ? ?that ?none? is also an acceptable response)/
>      ? 2. Would this topic engage your group to the point of taking part in
>      ? ? ?the organization of the session?
> 
>     Kindly respond by _Wednesday 7 August 2024 2000 UTC._
> 
>     __
> 
>     Thank you all!
> 
>     **
> 
>      ? 1. *ccNSO Proposal*
> 
>     The ccNSO Council suggests a plenary session during the ICANN 81
>     meeting
>     to be held in Istanbul in November 2024, on the topic of the WSIS+20
>     Review and what ICANN (the community and the organisation) can do to
>     help advertise and preserve ICANN?s multi-stakeholder model, and the
>     broader multi-stakeholder internet governance approach, during the
>     Review.
> 
>     ICANN is working with the community to reflect on lessons learned in
>     the
>     GDC process during 2023-2024, and developing a strategy for the role
>     ICANN and its community can play during the WSIS+20 review in 2024 and
>     2025. By the time ICANN81 rolls around, this strategy should be well
>     developed, and it will be time to further mobilise the ICANN community
>     around the role it can play in this important work.
> 
>     The main outcomes of such a session should be that:
> 
>      ? ?* The ICANN community is well informed about the strategic
>     approach to
>      ? ? ?the WSIS+20 Review, and what role individual organisations and
>      ? ? ?communities can play
>      ? ?* The ICANN community is mobilised to play the roles they can
>     play as
>      ? ? ?part of the Review
> 
>     A secondary outcome would be the sharing of greater insight about where
>     the WSIS+20 review is at, though this can be covered in the
>     Geopolitical
>     session.
> 
>      ? 2. *IPC Proposal*
> 
>     _Working Title:_Reviewing ICANN?s Accountability Mechanisms
> 
>     _Aim:_? To hold a general discussion across the community about the
>     ICANN Accountability Mechanisms, particularly the Request for
>     Reconsideration (RFR) and Independent Review Process (IRP) in order to
>     elicit views on whether:
> 
>      ? ?* these mechanisms are fit for purpose
>      ? ?* there are unintended outcomes resulting from the manner in which
>      ? ? ?these mechanisms are set out in the Bylaws.? For example:
>      ? ? ? ?o do the standing and grounds requirements for either mechanism
>      ? ? ? ? ?serve to exclude legitimate access by those that the community
>      ? ? ? ? ?intended to have access, such as SO, AC, SG and Cs
>      ? ? ? ?o Are these mechanisms available to any classes of
>     complainant who
>      ? ? ? ? ?were not intended by the community to have access to them
>      ? ? ? ?o Is the EC IRP process sufficiently clear and unambiguous.
>      ? ?* there are concerns sufficient to warrant review and potential
>      ? ? ?revision of the relevant Bylaws provisions and, if so, whether
>     there
>      ? ? ?is a sufficient support from the community to convene a CCWG
>     to work
>      ? ? ?on this.
> 
>     _Brief Background:_
> 
>     On a number of occasions recently, including in meetings with the GNSO
>     Council, ICANN Board Members have expressed the view that the IRP, as
>     presently drafted, could be used by classes of potential claimant who
>     were never intended to have access to this mechanism, such as an
>     unsuccessful respondent to an ICANN RFP or tender process.? Board
>     Members have expressed the desire for a community discussion on this.
> 
>     At the same time, the GNSO?s Intellectual Property Constituency
>     recently
>     brought a RFR against a proposal by the Board that would have had the
>     effect of changing a Fundamental Bylaws without following the
>     Bylaws-mandated process for doing so.? The IPC?s RFR was summarily
>     dismissed as failing to demonstrate that the IPC was harmed by such a
>     Board action.
> 
>     The intent of this session would not be to publicly debate the IPC?s
>     ongoing disagreement with ICANN over the RFR, which is currently in the
>     Co-Operative Engagement Process.? Rather, we believe that both examples
>     demonstrate that there are concerns, both on ICANN Org?s side and on
>     the
>     Community side, with these important accountability mechanisms which
>     were revised as a result of the cross community work on Accountability
>     in the context of the IANA Transition.? We believe this is an
>     appropriate time for a discussion on whether the mechanisms meet the
>     community?s expectations, or whether they would benefit from a more
>     formal review and revision.
> 
>     **
> 
>     *3) At-Large/ ALAC Proposal*
> 
> 
>     _Working Title_: Shifting Paradigms: Multistakeholderism, Geopolitics,
>     International Law, and New Internet Infrastructures.
> 
>     _Objective/Aims_:
>     To explore the intersections of geopolitics, international law, and
>     emerging internet infrastructures. Key topics include the reshaping of
>     the multistakeholder model, implications for new internet
>     infrastructures, and data governance. The discussion will reference the
>     2024 United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy,
>     EU's GDPR, the AI Act, and NIS2.?This session is crucial for end users,
>     regulators, policymakers, technologists, legal experts, academics, and
>     other stakeholders in the Internet governance community. It emphasizes
>     the link between infrastructure governance and data management from the
>     end user perspective, highlighting the importance of user-centric
>     approaches in shaping the future of internet infrastructures.
> 
>     _Proposed Speakers_:
> 
>      ? ?- Vint Cerf, Internet Pioneer
>      ? ?- Leon Sanchez, ICANN Board Member
>      ? ?- Jorge Cancio, Deputy Head of the International Relations Team at
>     the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM); GAC Switzerland
>      ? ?- Pari Esfandiari, ALAC/EURALO, Global TechnoPolitics Forum
>      ? ?- Susan Chalmers, Internet Policy Specialist, US Department of
>     Commerce, NTIA
>      ? ?- Berna Ak?al? G?r, Lecturer, CCLS Queen Mary University of London,
>     Associate Research Fellow at UNU-CRIS Digital Cluster
>      ? ?- John Crain, ICANN SVP & Chief Technology Officer
> 
>     _Moderator:_?Joanna Kulesza, ALAC Liaison to the GAC
> 
>     _Scoping Questions_:
> 
>      ? 1.? ?How should the multistakeholder model evolve to accommodate new
>      ? ? ?internet infrastructures and the shift towards them in governance?
>      ? 2.? ?What are the primary governance challenges posed by the
>      ? ? ?development of new internet infrastructures and governance models?
>      ? 3.? ?How do existing regulatory frameworks like GDPR, the AI Act, and
>      ? ? ?NIS2 address the challenges and opportunities presented by new
>      ? ? ?internet infrastructures and respective governance models?
> 
> 
>     _Expected Outcomes_:
> 
> 
>     - A comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities
>     presented by new internet infrastructures and the regulatory shift
>     towards them - MSM implications.
>     - Insight into how existing regulatory frameworks, including the MSM,
>     can adapt to these emerging technologies.
>     - Enhanced dialogue among stakeholders on the future of
>     multistakeholder
>     Internet governance.
> 
>      ? 4. *RrSG Proposal*
> 
>     **
> 
>     RrSG Proposal for ICANN81 Plenary Session: The Registrant?s Journey
> 
>     Follow along with our hero Sophia Exemplar as she begins her Registrant
>     Journey and encounters ICANN policies in the registration and use of
>     her
>     new domain name to create a fan website for the 1960s TV show
>     /Thunderbirds/. Along the way, she?ll encounter choices for
>     registration
>     data submission and publication, phishing emails and deceptive notices,
>     and renewal reminders. She?ll consider moving to a new registrar, or
>     even giving the domain name away to a friend, and more. Will Sophia?s
>     journey be a success? We?ll poll the meeting attendees to help her
>     decide what to do at each important step in the process.
> 
>     /This session takes attendees through important aspects of the domain
>     name lifecycle, covering registration data collection requirements,
>     choices around data masking or publication, contacts sent to the domain
>     owner, and processes including registrar transfer and change of
>     ownership data. Attendees will gain a greater understanding of the
>     industry landscape and domain owner experience. /
> 
>     **
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     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  Tue Aug  6 12:25:43 2024
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 11:25:43 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ext] FW: Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81
In-Reply-To: <E00782D0-2A5A-4357-9A86-B5D310B80C6C@icann.org>
References: <E00782D0-2A5A-4357-9A86-B5D310B80C6C@icann.org>
Message-ID: <32145614-c62d-4ed3-a3b9-f7692d7cd2ea@Julf.com>


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Ext] FW: Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81
Date: 	Mon, 5 Aug 2024 21:03:20 +0000
From: 	Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
To: 	Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie) <MCole at perkinscoie.com>, Sally Costerton 
<sally.costerton at icann.org>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org>, 
Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
CC: 	Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>



Dear Mason and Julf,

With thanks for your patience and understanding, we?ve discussed the 
budget, requirements and needs with our colleagues from the Meetings and 
other teams that support the ICANN Public Meetings. I?m very pleased to 
inform you that we believe we will be able to support the Non-Contracted 
Parties House (NCPH) Day Zero event request, as outlined in your 
proposal. Carlos and his team will be in touch with you shortly, to work 
out the finer details as to the program and logistics, as well as to 
formalize and finalize the support needs for this meeting.

Thank you for your continued commitment to our shared mission and to 
your collaborative style of working together. Our team is very happy to 
support you and your objectives for this meeting at ICANN81.

Cheers

Mary

*From: *"Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie)" <MCole at perkinscoie.com>
*Date: *Monday, July 29, 2024 at 11:57 PM
*To: *Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, Sally Costerton 
<sally.costerton at icann.org>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org>, 
Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
*Cc: *Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>
*Subject: *RE: [Ext] FW: Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81

Thanks Mary for the update.? Looking forward to hearing more soon.

*Mason Cole**| **Perkins Coie LLP*

*INTERNET GOVERNANCE ADVISOR*

1120 N.W. Couch Street Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

D. +1.503.727.2074

E. MCole at perkinscoie.com <mailto:%20MCole at perkinscoie.com>

*From:* Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
*Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2024 8:55 AM
*To:* Cole, Mason (POR) <MCole at perkinscoie.com>; Sally Costerton 
<sally.costerton at icann.org>; Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org>; 
Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
*Cc:* Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>
*Subject:* Re: [Ext] FW: Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81

Dear Mason and Julf,

Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your request. 
As you may have guessed, we have been looking at the likely cost, 
logistics and resourcing needs for this event, with Andrea?s and Carlos? 
very able assistance. We are finalizing things now and I very much hope 
that we will be able to get back to you within the next day or two. 
Thank you for your patience and understanding!

Cheers

Mary

*From: *"Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie)" <MCole at perkinscoie.com 
<mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>>
*Date: *Monday, July 29, 2024 at 11:26 PM
*To: *Sally Costerton <sally.costerton at icann.org 
<mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org 
<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org 
<mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org>>, Andrea Glandon 
<andrea.glandon at icann.org <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org>>
*Cc: *Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com <mailto:julf at Julf.com>>
*Subject: *[Ext] FW: Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81

Greetings all ?

Julf and I have yet to hear back regarding the attached proposal for a 
one-day Day 0 meeting prior to ICANN81 in Istanbul.? Some of our members 
would like to proceed with travel booking, and it would be helpful to 
know whether they should accommodate this proposed meeting.? We also are 
mindful of the approaching time for sponsored travelers to make 
arrangements.

May we have an update please?

Many thanks ?

Mason and Julf

*Mason Cole**| **Perkins Coie LLP*

*INTERNET GOVERNANCE ADVISOR*

1120 N.W. Couch Street Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

D. +1.503.727.2074

E. MCole at perkinscoie.com <mailto:%20MCole at perkinscoie.com>

*From:* Cole, Mason (POR) <MCole at perkinscoie.com 
<mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>>
*Sent:* Thursday, June 27, 2024 10:11 AM
*To:* Sally Costerton <sally.costerton at icann.org 
<mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org>>; Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org 
<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>; Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org 
<mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org>>; Andrea Glandon 
<andrea.glandon at icann.org <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org>>
*Cc:* Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com <mailto:julf at julf.com>>
*Subject:* Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81

Dear Sally, Mary, Carlos and Andrea (cc Julf) ?

On behalf of the CSG and NCSG, Julf and I respectfully submit the 
attached proposal for a Day 0 meeting of the Non-Contracted Party House 
during ICANN81 in Istanbul.? We trust the request is in good order, and 
look forward to your consideration of the request.

You?ll recall that the NCPH met for a similar Day 0 event at ICANN78 in 
Hamburg, where we made substantial progress on the joint work of our 
house.? The objective of the proposed ICANN81 meeting not only is to 
further strengthen our cooperative relationship, but to advance specific 
policy work.? We also are hopeful that, as was the case for the 
Contracted Party Summit in May, we may have an opportunity to interact 
with and brief ICANN Board members about issues important to the NCPH, 
according to their availability.? Our planned one-day meeting will be 
substantive and, we?re confident, will yield visible and productive 
outcomes that we plan to share broadly with the community and ICANN Org.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.? Should you have 
questions or suggestions, Julf and I remain available to you.? We 
eagerly anticipate your reply.

Kind regards ?

Mason Cole (for the CSG) and Julf Helsingius (for the NCSG)

*Mason Cole**| **Perkins Coie LLP*

*INTERNET GOVERNANCE ADVISOR*

1120 N.W. Couch Street Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

D. +1.503.727.2074

E. MCole at perkinscoie.com <mailto:%20MCole at perkinscoie.com>

------------------------------------------------------------------------


NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential 
information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender 
by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments 
without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


NOTICE: This communication from Perkins Coie LLP may contain privileged 
or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, 
please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the 
message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. 
Thank you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


NOTICE: This communication from Perkins Coie LLP may contain privileged 
or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, 
please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the 
message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. 
Thank you.



From julf at Julf.com  Tue Aug  6 15:02:38 2024
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 14:02:38 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Fwd: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning]
 Updated: INPUT NEEDED ICANN81 Community Session Topic by Wednesday 07
 August 2024
In-Reply-To: <CAGSP6RTRpvQVr1uFazn-86QkYBYT-BO6Xu2qkyTeP9hm3myiAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <599D1663-3954-40F4-A3F1-8308B4240167@icann.org>
 <1c39a5a9-5589-4fcd-bdb2-3777ddba1890@Julf.com>
 <CAGSP6RRC49hjW3Y2OLp8gsjTGSLJstJZKZyDDQNYWfCFneEZEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <bae79088-2ee2-40b2-97ba-95564ed2f955@Julf.com>
 <CAGSP6RTRpvQVr1uFazn-86QkYBYT-BO6Xu2qkyTeP9hm3myiAA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d422cb6c-e316-49e0-a1e0-983c850fbf04@Julf.com>

Hi Pedro,

Thanks for letting us know - I don't see it as an issue, but it
is indeed always good to declare any potential ones. I also see
you have updated your GNSO SOI - great!

	Julf


On 05/08/2024 23:54, Pedro de Perdig?o Lana wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Seeing the messages in the other mail chain about this same subject, I 
> would like to highlight that I currently work for a ccTLD. My 
> involvement in ICANN and in the NCSG precedes this job and I do not 
> represent NIC.br in ICANN work, but even then this could represent some 
> level of conflict of interest.
> 
> Cordially,
> 
> *Pedro de Perdig?o Lana*
> Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/> 
> Researcher
> PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
> Board Member @ NCUC (ICANN) <https://www.ncuc.org/>,ISOC BR 
> <https://isoc.org.br/>, CC Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>and 
> IODA <https://ioda.org.br/>
> This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received 
> by mistake, please reply informing it.
> 
> 
> Em s?b., 3 de ago. de 2024 ?s 05:16, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com 
> <mailto:julf at julf.com>> escreveu:
> 
>     Hi Pedro - good comments. I can try to suggest some sort of merger of
>     1 and 3, but not sure what is possible at this point.
> 
>      ? ? ? ? Julf
> 
> 
>     On 01/08/2024 14:36, Pedro de Perdig?o Lana wrote:
>      > Hi everyone,
>      >
>      > Would it be possible to merge proposals 1 and 3? ALAC's proposal
>      > apparently overlaps quite a bit with the "Geopolitical,
>     Legislative, and
>      > Regulatory Developments Update", and ccNSO's seems a bit repetitive,
>      > even if the idea is exactly to consolidate what is being built
>     during
>      > the year. Maybe joining those (something along the lines of "ICANN's
>      > role towards new Internet Infrastructures being proposed
>     nationally and
>      > internationally") would result in a very interesting session.
>      >
>      > IPC's proposal is too specific, aiming to bring a concern of their
>      > constituency to be debated by the whole community, and RrSG is
>     too wide
>      > (it looks more like a proposal for an outreach video than a
>     Community
>      > Session)
>      >
>      > *Pedro de Perdig?o Lana*
>      > Advogado - OAB/PR 90.600 <https://www.nic.br/
>     <https://www.nic.br/>>, Pesquisador (GEDAI/UFPR
>      > <https://www.gedai.com.br/ <https://www.gedai.com.br/>>)
>      > Doutorando em Direito (UFPR), Mestre em Direito Empresarial
>     (UCoimbra),
>      > Membro da Coordena??o - NCUC (ICANN) <https://www.ncuc.org/
>     <https://www.ncuc.org/>>, ISOC BR
>      > <https://isoc.org.br/ <https://isoc.org.br/>>, IODA
>     <https://ioda.org.br/ <https://ioda.org.br/>> e CC Brasil
>      > <https://br.creativecommons.net/ <https://br.creativecommons.net/>>.
>      > Essa mensagem ? restrita ao remetente e destinat?rio(s). Se
>     recebida por
>      > engano, favor responder informando o erro.
>      >
>      >
>      > Em qua., 31 de jul. de 2024 ?s 09:28, Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC
>      > <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>
>     <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>>> escreveu:
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >? ? ?-------- Forwarded Message --------
>      >? ? ?Subject:? ? ? ? [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Updated:
>     INPUT
>      >? ? ?NEEDED
>      >? ? ?ICANN81 Community Session Topic by Wednesday 07 August 2024
>      >? ? ?Date:? ?Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:51:07 +0000
>      >? ? ?From:? ?Nathalie Peregrine via SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning
>      >? ? ?<soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
>     <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>
>      >? ? ?<mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
>     <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>>>
>      >? ? ?Reply-To:? ? ? ?Nathalie Peregrine
>     <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
>      >? ? ?<mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
>     <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>>>
>      >? ? ?To: soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
>     <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>
>      >? ? ?<mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
>     <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>>
>      >? ? ?<soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
>     <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>
>      >? ? ?<mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
>     <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>>>
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >? ? ?**With additional RrSG topic added, and extended deadline
>     7^th August
>      >? ? ?20:00 UTC, thank you to Alejandra and Justine for the
>     suggestion!**
>      >
>      >? ? ?Dear all,
>      >
>      >? ? ?The deadline for topic suggestions regarding the ICANN81
>     Community
>      >? ? ?Session has now passed. You may have seen three proposals
>     circulated on
>      >? ? ?this mailing list. I have posted them below in order of
>     submission.
>      >
>      >? ? ?In order to finalize the choice of topic, we would like to
>     invite ICANN
>      >? ? ?community leaders ?to submit their choices via the mailing
>     list by
>      >? ? ?responding to these two questions:
>      >
>      >? ? ? ? 1. Which topic is your group most interested in? /(Please
>     bear in
>      >? ? ?mind
>      >? ? ? ? ? ?that ?none? is also an acceptable response)/
>      >? ? ? ? 2. Would this topic engage your group to the point of
>     taking part in
>      >? ? ? ? ? ?the organization of the session?
>      >
>      >? ? ?Kindly respond by _Wednesday 7 August 2024 2000 UTC._
>      >
>      >? ? ?__
>      >
>      >? ? ?Thank you all!
>      >
>      >? ? ?**
>      >
>      >? ? ? ? 1. *ccNSO Proposal*
>      >
>      >? ? ?The ccNSO Council suggests a plenary session during the ICANN 81
>      >? ? ?meeting
>      >? ? ?to be held in Istanbul in November 2024, on the topic of the
>     WSIS+20
>      >? ? ?Review and what ICANN (the community and the organisation)
>     can do to
>      >? ? ?help advertise and preserve ICANN?s multi-stakeholder model,
>     and the
>      >? ? ?broader multi-stakeholder internet governance approach,
>     during the
>      >? ? ?Review.
>      >
>      >? ? ?ICANN is working with the community to reflect on lessons
>     learned in
>      >? ? ?the
>      >? ? ?GDC process during 2023-2024, and developing a strategy for
>     the role
>      >? ? ?ICANN and its community can play during the WSIS+20 review in
>     2024 and
>      >? ? ?2025. By the time ICANN81 rolls around, this strategy should
>     be well
>      >? ? ?developed, and it will be time to further mobilise the ICANN
>     community
>      >? ? ?around the role it can play in this important work.
>      >
>      >? ? ?The main outcomes of such a session should be that:
>      >
>      >? ? ? ? ?* The ICANN community is well informed about the strategic
>      >? ? ?approach to
>      >? ? ? ? ? ?the WSIS+20 Review, and what role individual
>     organisations and
>      >? ? ? ? ? ?communities can play
>      >? ? ? ? ?* The ICANN community is mobilised to play the roles they can
>      >? ? ?play as
>      >? ? ? ? ? ?part of the Review
>      >
>      >? ? ?A secondary outcome would be the sharing of greater insight
>     about where
>      >? ? ?the WSIS+20 review is at, though this can be covered in the
>      >? ? ?Geopolitical
>      >? ? ?session.
>      >
>      >? ? ? ? 2. *IPC Proposal*
>      >
>      >? ? ?_Working Title:_Reviewing ICANN?s Accountability Mechanisms
>      >
>      >? ? ?_Aim:_? To hold a general discussion across the community
>     about the
>      >? ? ?ICANN Accountability Mechanisms, particularly the Request for
>      >? ? ?Reconsideration (RFR) and Independent Review Process (IRP) in
>     order to
>      >? ? ?elicit views on whether:
>      >
>      >? ? ? ? ?* these mechanisms are fit for purpose
>      >? ? ? ? ?* there are unintended outcomes resulting from the manner
>     in which
>      >? ? ? ? ? ?these mechanisms are set out in the Bylaws.? For example:
>      >? ? ? ? ? ? ?o do the standing and grounds requirements for either
>     mechanism
>      >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?serve to exclude legitimate access by those that
>     the community
>      >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?intended to have access, such as SO, AC, SG and Cs
>      >? ? ? ? ? ? ?o Are these mechanisms available to any classes of
>      >? ? ?complainant who
>      >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?were not intended by the community to have access
>     to them
>      >? ? ? ? ? ? ?o Is the EC IRP process sufficiently clear and
>     unambiguous.
>      >? ? ? ? ?* there are concerns sufficient to warrant review and
>     potential
>      >? ? ? ? ? ?revision of the relevant Bylaws provisions and, if so,
>     whether
>      >? ? ?there
>      >? ? ? ? ? ?is a sufficient support from the community to convene a
>     CCWG
>      >? ? ?to work
>      >? ? ? ? ? ?on this.
>      >
>      >? ? ?_Brief Background:_
>      >
>      >? ? ?On a number of occasions recently, including in meetings with
>     the GNSO
>      >? ? ?Council, ICANN Board Members have expressed the view that the
>     IRP, as
>      >? ? ?presently drafted, could be used by classes of potential
>     claimant who
>      >? ? ?were never intended to have access to this mechanism, such as an
>      >? ? ?unsuccessful respondent to an ICANN RFP or tender process.? Board
>      >? ? ?Members have expressed the desire for a community discussion
>     on this.
>      >
>      >? ? ?At the same time, the GNSO?s Intellectual Property Constituency
>      >? ? ?recently
>      >? ? ?brought a RFR against a proposal by the Board that would have
>     had the
>      >? ? ?effect of changing a Fundamental Bylaws without following the
>      >? ? ?Bylaws-mandated process for doing so.? The IPC?s RFR was
>     summarily
>      >? ? ?dismissed as failing to demonstrate that the IPC was harmed
>     by such a
>      >? ? ?Board action.
>      >
>      >? ? ?The intent of this session would not be to publicly debate
>     the IPC?s
>      >? ? ?ongoing disagreement with ICANN over the RFR, which is
>     currently in the
>      >? ? ?Co-Operative Engagement Process.? Rather, we believe that
>     both examples
>      >? ? ?demonstrate that there are concerns, both on ICANN Org?s side
>     and on
>      >? ? ?the
>      >? ? ?Community side, with these important accountability
>     mechanisms which
>      >? ? ?were revised as a result of the cross community work on
>     Accountability
>      >? ? ?in the context of the IANA Transition.? We believe this is an
>      >? ? ?appropriate time for a discussion on whether the mechanisms
>     meet the
>      >? ? ?community?s expectations, or whether they would benefit from
>     a more
>      >? ? ?formal review and revision.
>      >
>      >? ? ?**
>      >
>      >? ? ?*3) At-Large/ ALAC Proposal*
>      >
>      >
>      >? ? ?_Working Title_: Shifting Paradigms: Multistakeholderism,
>     Geopolitics,
>      >? ? ?International Law, and New Internet Infrastructures.
>      >
>      >? ? ?_Objective/Aims_:
>      >? ? ?To explore the intersections of geopolitics, international
>     law, and
>      >? ? ?emerging internet infrastructures. Key topics include the
>     reshaping of
>      >? ? ?the multistakeholder model, implications for new internet
>      >? ? ?infrastructures, and data governance. The discussion will
>     reference the
>      >? ? ?2024 United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy
>     Strategy,
>      >? ? ?EU's GDPR, the AI Act, and NIS2.?This session is crucial for
>     end users,
>      >? ? ?regulators, policymakers, technologists, legal experts,
>     academics, and
>      >? ? ?other stakeholders in the Internet governance community. It
>     emphasizes
>      >? ? ?the link between infrastructure governance and data
>     management from the
>      >? ? ?end user perspective, highlighting the importance of user-centric
>      >? ? ?approaches in shaping the future of internet infrastructures.
>      >
>      >? ? ?_Proposed Speakers_:
>      >
>      >? ? ? ? ?- Vint Cerf, Internet Pioneer
>      >? ? ? ? ?- Leon Sanchez, ICANN Board Member
>      >? ? ? ? ?- Jorge Cancio, Deputy Head of the International
>     Relations Team at
>      >? ? ?the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM); GAC Switzerland
>      >? ? ? ? ?- Pari Esfandiari, ALAC/EURALO, Global TechnoPolitics Forum
>      >? ? ? ? ?- Susan Chalmers, Internet Policy Specialist, US
>     Department of
>      >? ? ?Commerce, NTIA
>      >? ? ? ? ?- Berna Ak?al? G?r, Lecturer, CCLS Queen Mary University
>     of London,
>      >? ? ?Associate Research Fellow at UNU-CRIS Digital Cluster
>      >? ? ? ? ?- John Crain, ICANN SVP & Chief Technology Officer
>      >
>      >? ? ?_Moderator:_?Joanna Kulesza, ALAC Liaison to the GAC
>      >
>      >? ? ?_Scoping Questions_:
>      >
>      >? ? ? ? 1.? ?How should the multistakeholder model evolve to
>     accommodate new
>      >? ? ? ? ? ?internet infrastructures and the shift towards them in
>     governance?
>      >? ? ? ? 2.? ?What are the primary governance challenges posed by the
>      >? ? ? ? ? ?development of new internet infrastructures and
>     governance models?
>      >? ? ? ? 3.? ?How do existing regulatory frameworks like GDPR, the
>     AI Act, and
>      >? ? ? ? ? ?NIS2 address the challenges and opportunities presented
>     by new
>      >? ? ? ? ? ?internet infrastructures and respective governance models?
>      >
>      >
>      >? ? ?_Expected Outcomes_:
>      >
>      >
>      >? ? ?- A comprehensive understanding of the challenges and
>     opportunities
>      >? ? ?presented by new internet infrastructures and the regulatory
>     shift
>      >? ? ?towards them - MSM implications.
>      >? ? ?- Insight into how existing regulatory frameworks, including
>     the MSM,
>      >? ? ?can adapt to these emerging technologies.
>      >? ? ?- Enhanced dialogue among stakeholders on the future of
>      >? ? ?multistakeholder
>      >? ? ?Internet governance.
>      >
>      >? ? ? ? 4. *RrSG Proposal*
>      >
>      >? ? ?**
>      >
>      >? ? ?RrSG Proposal for ICANN81 Plenary Session: The Registrant?s
>     Journey
>      >
>      >? ? ?Follow along with our hero Sophia Exemplar as she begins her
>     Registrant
>      >? ? ?Journey and encounters ICANN policies in the registration and
>     use of
>      >? ? ?her
>      >? ? ?new domain name to create a fan website for the 1960s TV show
>      >? ? ?/Thunderbirds/. Along the way, she?ll encounter choices for
>      >? ? ?registration
>      >? ? ?data submission and publication, phishing emails and
>     deceptive notices,
>      >? ? ?and renewal reminders. She?ll consider moving to a new
>     registrar, or
>      >? ? ?even giving the domain name away to a friend, and more. Will
>     Sophia?s
>      >? ? ?journey be a success? We?ll poll the meeting attendees to
>     help her
>      >? ? ?decide what to do at each important step in the process.
>      >
>      >? ? ?/This session takes attendees through important aspects of
>     the domain
>      >? ? ?name lifecycle, covering registration data collection
>     requirements,
>      >? ? ?choices around data masking or publication, contacts sent to
>     the domain
>      >? ? ?owner, and processes including registrar transfer and change of
>      >? ? ?ownership data. Attendees will gain a greater understanding
>     of the
>      >? ? ?industry landscape and domain owner experience. /
>      >
>      >? ? ?**
>      >
>      >? ? ?_______________________________________________
>      >? ? ?NCSG-EC mailing list
>      > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     <mailto: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>
>      >? ? ?<https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec>>
>      >
> 


From pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com  Tue Aug  6 00:54:06 2024
From: pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Pedro_de_Perdig=C3=A3o_Lana?=)
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:54:06 -0300
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Fwd: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning]
 Updated: INPUT NEEDED ICANN81 Community Session Topic by Wednesday 07
 August 2024
In-Reply-To: <bae79088-2ee2-40b2-97ba-95564ed2f955@Julf.com>
References: <599D1663-3954-40F4-A3F1-8308B4240167@icann.org>
 <1c39a5a9-5589-4fcd-bdb2-3777ddba1890@Julf.com>
 <CAGSP6RRC49hjW3Y2OLp8gsjTGSLJstJZKZyDDQNYWfCFneEZEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <bae79088-2ee2-40b2-97ba-95564ed2f955@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <CAGSP6RTRpvQVr1uFazn-86QkYBYT-BO6Xu2qkyTeP9hm3myiAA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

Seeing the messages in the other mail chain about this same subject, I
would like to highlight that I currently work for a ccTLD. My involvement
in ICANN and in the NCSG precedes this job and I do not represent NIC.br in
ICANN work, but even then this could represent some level of conflict of
interest.

Cordially,

*Pedro de Perdig?o Lana*
Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
Researcher
PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
Board Member @ NCUC (ICANN) <https://www.ncuc.org/>, ISOC BR
<https://isoc.org.br/>, CC Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/> and IODA
<https://ioda.org.br/>
This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
mistake, please reply informing it.


Em s?b., 3 de ago. de 2024 ?s 05:16, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>
escreveu:

> Hi Pedro - good comments. I can try to suggest some sort of merger of
> 1 and 3, but not sure what is possible at this point.
>
>         Julf
>
>
> On 01/08/2024 14:36, Pedro de Perdig?o Lana wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Would it be possible to merge proposals 1 and 3? ALAC's proposal
> > apparently overlaps quite a bit with the "Geopolitical, Legislative, and
> > Regulatory Developments Update", and ccNSO's seems a bit repetitive,
> > even if the idea is exactly to consolidate what is being built during
> > the year. Maybe joining those (something along the lines of "ICANN's
> > role towards new Internet Infrastructures being proposed nationally and
> > internationally") would result in a very interesting session.
> >
> > IPC's proposal is too specific, aiming to bring a concern of their
> > constituency to be debated by the whole community, and RrSG is too wide
> > (it looks more like a proposal for an outreach video than a Community
> > Session)
> >
> > *Pedro de Perdig?o Lana*
> > Advogado - OAB/PR 90.600 <https://www.nic.br/>, Pesquisador (GEDAI/UFPR
> > <https://www.gedai.com.br/>)
> > Doutorando em Direito (UFPR), Mestre em Direito Empresarial (UCoimbra),
> > Membro da Coordena??o - NCUC (ICANN) <https://www.ncuc.org/>, ISOC BR
> > <https://isoc.org.br/>, IODA <https://ioda.org.br/> e CC Brasil
> > <https://br.creativecommons.net/>.
> > Essa mensagem ? restrita ao remetente e destinat?rio(s). Se recebida por
> > engano, favor responder informando o erro.
> >
> >
> > Em qua., 31 de jul. de 2024 ?s 09:28, Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC
> > <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> escreveu:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     -------- Forwarded Message --------
> >     Subject:        [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Updated: INPUT
> >     NEEDED
> >     ICANN81 Community Session Topic by Wednesday 07 August 2024
> >     Date:   Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:51:07 +0000
> >     From:   Nathalie Peregrine via SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning
> >     <soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
> >     <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>>
> >     Reply-To:       Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
> >     <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>>
> >     To: soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
> >     <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>
> >     <soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
> >     <mailto:soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>>
> >
> >
> >
> >     **With additional RrSG topic added, and extended deadline 7^th August
> >     20:00 UTC, thank you to Alejandra and Justine for the suggestion!**
> >
> >     Dear all,
> >
> >     The deadline for topic suggestions regarding the ICANN81 Community
> >     Session has now passed. You may have seen three proposals circulated
> on
> >     this mailing list. I have posted them below in order of submission.
> >
> >     In order to finalize the choice of topic, we would like to invite
> ICANN
> >     community leaders  to submit their choices via the mailing list by
> >     responding to these two questions:
> >
> >        1. Which topic is your group most interested in? /(Please bear in
> >     mind
> >           that ?none? is also an acceptable response)/
> >        2. Would this topic engage your group to the point of taking part
> in
> >           the organization of the session?
> >
> >     Kindly respond by _Wednesday 7 August 2024 2000 UTC._
> >
> >     __
> >
> >     Thank you all!
> >
> >     **
> >
> >        1. *ccNSO Proposal*
> >
> >     The ccNSO Council suggests a plenary session during the ICANN 81
> >     meeting
> >     to be held in Istanbul in November 2024, on the topic of the WSIS+20
> >     Review and what ICANN (the community and the organisation) can do to
> >     help advertise and preserve ICANN?s multi-stakeholder model, and the
> >     broader multi-stakeholder internet governance approach, during the
> >     Review.
> >
> >     ICANN is working with the community to reflect on lessons learned in
> >     the
> >     GDC process during 2023-2024, and developing a strategy for the role
> >     ICANN and its community can play during the WSIS+20 review in 2024
> and
> >     2025. By the time ICANN81 rolls around, this strategy should be well
> >     developed, and it will be time to further mobilise the ICANN
> community
> >     around the role it can play in this important work.
> >
> >     The main outcomes of such a session should be that:
> >
> >         * The ICANN community is well informed about the strategic
> >     approach to
> >           the WSIS+20 Review, and what role individual organisations and
> >           communities can play
> >         * The ICANN community is mobilised to play the roles they can
> >     play as
> >           part of the Review
> >
> >     A secondary outcome would be the sharing of greater insight about
> where
> >     the WSIS+20 review is at, though this can be covered in the
> >     Geopolitical
> >     session.
> >
> >        2. *IPC Proposal*
> >
> >     _Working Title:_Reviewing ICANN?s Accountability Mechanisms
> >
> >     _Aim:_  To hold a general discussion across the community about the
> >     ICANN Accountability Mechanisms, particularly the Request for
> >     Reconsideration (RFR) and Independent Review Process (IRP) in order
> to
> >     elicit views on whether:
> >
> >         * these mechanisms are fit for purpose
> >         * there are unintended outcomes resulting from the manner in
> which
> >           these mechanisms are set out in the Bylaws.  For example:
> >             o do the standing and grounds requirements for either
> mechanism
> >               serve to exclude legitimate access by those that the
> community
> >               intended to have access, such as SO, AC, SG and Cs
> >             o Are these mechanisms available to any classes of
> >     complainant who
> >               were not intended by the community to have access to them
> >             o Is the EC IRP process sufficiently clear and unambiguous.
> >         * there are concerns sufficient to warrant review and potential
> >           revision of the relevant Bylaws provisions and, if so, whether
> >     there
> >           is a sufficient support from the community to convene a CCWG
> >     to work
> >           on this.
> >
> >     _Brief Background:_
> >
> >     On a number of occasions recently, including in meetings with the
> GNSO
> >     Council, ICANN Board Members have expressed the view that the IRP, as
> >     presently drafted, could be used by classes of potential claimant who
> >     were never intended to have access to this mechanism, such as an
> >     unsuccessful respondent to an ICANN RFP or tender process.  Board
> >     Members have expressed the desire for a community discussion on this.
> >
> >     At the same time, the GNSO?s Intellectual Property Constituency
> >     recently
> >     brought a RFR against a proposal by the Board that would have had the
> >     effect of changing a Fundamental Bylaws without following the
> >     Bylaws-mandated process for doing so.  The IPC?s RFR was summarily
> >     dismissed as failing to demonstrate that the IPC was harmed by such a
> >     Board action.
> >
> >     The intent of this session would not be to publicly debate the IPC?s
> >     ongoing disagreement with ICANN over the RFR, which is currently in
> the
> >     Co-Operative Engagement Process.  Rather, we believe that both
> examples
> >     demonstrate that there are concerns, both on ICANN Org?s side and on
> >     the
> >     Community side, with these important accountability mechanisms which
> >     were revised as a result of the cross community work on
> Accountability
> >     in the context of the IANA Transition.  We believe this is an
> >     appropriate time for a discussion on whether the mechanisms meet the
> >     community?s expectations, or whether they would benefit from a more
> >     formal review and revision.
> >
> >     **
> >
> >     *3) At-Large/ ALAC Proposal*
> >
> >
> >     _Working Title_: Shifting Paradigms: Multistakeholderism,
> Geopolitics,
> >     International Law, and New Internet Infrastructures.
> >
> >     _Objective/Aims_:
> >     To explore the intersections of geopolitics, international law, and
> >     emerging internet infrastructures. Key topics include the reshaping
> of
> >     the multistakeholder model, implications for new internet
> >     infrastructures, and data governance. The discussion will reference
> the
> >     2024 United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy
> Strategy,
> >     EU's GDPR, the AI Act, and NIS2. This session is crucial for end
> users,
> >     regulators, policymakers, technologists, legal experts, academics,
> and
> >     other stakeholders in the Internet governance community. It
> emphasizes
> >     the link between infrastructure governance and data management from
> the
> >     end user perspective, highlighting the importance of user-centric
> >     approaches in shaping the future of internet infrastructures.
> >
> >     _Proposed Speakers_:
> >
> >         - Vint Cerf, Internet Pioneer
> >         - Leon Sanchez, ICANN Board Member
> >         - Jorge Cancio, Deputy Head of the International Relations Team
> at
> >     the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM); GAC Switzerland
> >         - Pari Esfandiari, ALAC/EURALO, Global TechnoPolitics Forum
> >         - Susan Chalmers, Internet Policy Specialist, US Department of
> >     Commerce, NTIA
> >         - Berna Ak?al? G?r, Lecturer, CCLS Queen Mary University of
> London,
> >     Associate Research Fellow at UNU-CRIS Digital Cluster
> >         - John Crain, ICANN SVP & Chief Technology Officer
> >
> >     _Moderator:_ Joanna Kulesza, ALAC Liaison to the GAC
> >
> >     _Scoping Questions_:
> >
> >        1.   How should the multistakeholder model evolve to accommodate
> new
> >           internet infrastructures and the shift towards them in
> governance?
> >        2.   What are the primary governance challenges posed by the
> >           development of new internet infrastructures and governance
> models?
> >        3.   How do existing regulatory frameworks like GDPR, the AI Act,
> and
> >           NIS2 address the challenges and opportunities presented by new
> >           internet infrastructures and respective governance models?
> >
> >
> >     _Expected Outcomes_:
> >
> >
> >     - A comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities
> >     presented by new internet infrastructures and the regulatory shift
> >     towards them - MSM implications.
> >     - Insight into how existing regulatory frameworks, including the MSM,
> >     can adapt to these emerging technologies.
> >     - Enhanced dialogue among stakeholders on the future of
> >     multistakeholder
> >     Internet governance.
> >
> >        4. *RrSG Proposal*
> >
> >     **
> >
> >     RrSG Proposal for ICANN81 Plenary Session: The Registrant?s Journey
> >
> >     Follow along with our hero Sophia Exemplar as she begins her
> Registrant
> >     Journey and encounters ICANN policies in the registration and use of
> >     her
> >     new domain name to create a fan website for the 1960s TV show
> >     /Thunderbirds/. Along the way, she?ll encounter choices for
> >     registration
> >     data submission and publication, phishing emails and deceptive
> notices,
> >     and renewal reminders. She?ll consider moving to a new registrar, or
> >     even giving the domain name away to a friend, and more. Will Sophia?s
> >     journey be a success? We?ll poll the meeting attendees to help her
> >     decide what to do at each important step in the process.
> >
> >     /This session takes attendees through important aspects of the domain
> >     name lifecycle, covering registration data collection requirements,
> >     choices around data masking or publication, contacts sent to the
> domain
> >     owner, and processes including registrar transfer and change of
> >     ownership data. Attendees will gain a greater understanding of the
> >     industry landscape and domain owner experience. /
> >
> >     **
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     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>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240805/60de94f4/attachment.htm>

From mamattah.raymond at gmail.com  Wed Aug  7 14:56:36 2024
From: mamattah.raymond at gmail.com (Raymond Mamattah)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 11:56:36 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ext] FW: Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81
In-Reply-To: <32145614-c62d-4ed3-a3b9-f7692d7cd2ea@Julf.com>
References: <E00782D0-2A5A-4357-9A86-B5D310B80C6C@icann.org>
 <32145614-c62d-4ed3-a3b9-f7692d7cd2ea@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <CAEGCQGvo8hEY=9+G-Uj6WhJya8ujOrpGOYaDjkrPDdAN7mYBVQ@mail.gmail.com>

Well-done to Mason and Julf for pushing for this day zero meeting at
ICANN81.

Raymond Mamattah
[image: linkedin]
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/raymond-selorm-mamattah/> [image:
facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/selorm.mamattah> [image: twitter]
<https://twitter.com/RMamattah>
Accra, Ghana


On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 9:25?AM Johan Helsingius via NCSG-PC <
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:        Re: [Ext] FW: Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81
> Date:   Mon, 5 Aug 2024 21:03:20 +0000
> From:   Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> To:     Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie) <MCole at perkinscoie.com>, Sally
> Costerton
> <sally.costerton at icann.org>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org>,
> Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
> CC:     Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>
>
>
>
> Dear Mason and Julf,
>
> With thanks for your patience and understanding, we?ve discussed the
> budget, requirements and needs with our colleagues from the Meetings and
> other teams that support the ICANN Public Meetings. I?m very pleased to
> inform you that we believe we will be able to support the Non-Contracted
> Parties House (NCPH) Day Zero event request, as outlined in your
> proposal. Carlos and his team will be in touch with you shortly, to work
> out the finer details as to the program and logistics, as well as to
> formalize and finalize the support needs for this meeting.
>
> Thank you for your continued commitment to our shared mission and to
> your collaborative style of working together. Our team is very happy to
> support you and your objectives for this meeting at ICANN81.
>
> Cheers
>
> Mary
>
> *From: *"Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie)" <MCole at perkinscoie.com>
> *Date: *Monday, July 29, 2024 at 11:57 PM
> *To: *Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, Sally Costerton
> <sally.costerton at icann.org>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org>,
> Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
> *Cc: *Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>
> *Subject: *RE: [Ext] FW: Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81
>
> Thanks Mary for the update.  Looking forward to hearing more soon.
>
> *Mason Cole**| **Perkins Coie LLP*
>
> *INTERNET GOVERNANCE ADVISOR*
>
> 1120 N.W. Couch Street Tenth Floor
>
> Portland, OR 97209-4128
>
> D. +1.503.727.2074
>
> E. MCole at perkinscoie.com <mailto:%20MCole at perkinscoie.com>
>
> *From:* Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2024 8:55 AM
> *To:* Cole, Mason (POR) <MCole at perkinscoie.com>; Sally Costerton
> <sally.costerton at icann.org>; Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org>;
> Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
> *Cc:* Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ext] FW: Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81
>
> Dear Mason and Julf,
>
> Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your request.
> As you may have guessed, we have been looking at the likely cost,
> logistics and resourcing needs for this event, with Andrea?s and Carlos?
> very able assistance. We are finalizing things now and I very much hope
> that we will be able to get back to you within the next day or two.
> Thank you for your patience and understanding!
>
> Cheers
>
> Mary
>
> *From: *"Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie)" <MCole at perkinscoie.com
> <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>>
> *Date: *Monday, July 29, 2024 at 11:26 PM
> *To: *Sally Costerton <sally.costerton at icann.org
> <mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org
> <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org
> <mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org>>, Andrea Glandon
> <andrea.glandon at icann.org <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org>>
> *Cc: *Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com <mailto:julf at Julf.com>>
> *Subject: *[Ext] FW: Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81
>
> Greetings all ?
>
> Julf and I have yet to hear back regarding the attached proposal for a
> one-day Day 0 meeting prior to ICANN81 in Istanbul.  Some of our members
> would like to proceed with travel booking, and it would be helpful to
> know whether they should accommodate this proposed meeting.  We also are
> mindful of the approaching time for sponsored travelers to make
> arrangements.
>
> May we have an update please?
>
> Many thanks ?
>
> Mason and Julf
>
> *Mason Cole**| **Perkins Coie LLP*
>
> *INTERNET GOVERNANCE ADVISOR*
>
> 1120 N.W. Couch Street Tenth Floor
>
> Portland, OR 97209-4128
>
> D. +1.503.727.2074
>
> E. MCole at perkinscoie.com <mailto:%20MCole at perkinscoie.com>
>
> *From:* Cole, Mason (POR) <MCole at perkinscoie.com
> <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 27, 2024 10:11 AM
> *To:* Sally Costerton <sally.costerton at icann.org
> <mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org>>; Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org
> <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>; Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org
> <mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org>>; Andrea Glandon
> <andrea.glandon at icann.org <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org>>
> *Cc:* Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com <mailto:julf at julf.com>>
> *Subject:* Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81
>
> Dear Sally, Mary, Carlos and Andrea (cc Julf) ?
>
> On behalf of the CSG and NCSG, Julf and I respectfully submit the
> attached proposal for a Day 0 meeting of the Non-Contracted Party House
> during ICANN81 in Istanbul.  We trust the request is in good order, and
> look forward to your consideration of the request.
>
> You?ll recall that the NCPH met for a similar Day 0 event at ICANN78 in
> Hamburg, where we made substantial progress on the joint work of our
> house.  The objective of the proposed ICANN81 meeting not only is to
> further strengthen our cooperative relationship, but to advance specific
> policy work.  We also are hopeful that, as was the case for the
> Contracted Party Summit in May, we may have an opportunity to interact
> with and brief ICANN Board members about issues important to the NCPH,
> according to their availability.  Our planned one-day meeting will be
> substantive and, we?re confident, will yield visible and productive
> outcomes that we plan to share broadly with the community and ICANN Org.
>
> Thank you for your consideration of this request.  Should you have
> questions or suggestions, Julf and I remain available to you.  We
> eagerly anticipate your reply.
>
> Kind regards ?
>
> Mason Cole (for the CSG) and Julf Helsingius (for the NCSG)
>
> *Mason Cole**| **Perkins Coie LLP*
>
> *INTERNET GOVERNANCE ADVISOR*
>
> 1120 N.W. Couch Street Tenth Floor
>
> Portland, OR 97209-4128
>
> D. +1.503.727.2074
>
> E. MCole at perkinscoie.com <mailto:%20MCole at perkinscoie.com>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
> information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender
> by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments
> without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> NOTICE: This communication from Perkins Coie LLP may contain privileged
> or other confidential information. If you have received it in error,
> please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the
> message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents.
> Thank you.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> NOTICE: This communication from Perkins Coie LLP may contain privileged
> or other confidential information. If you have received it in error,
> please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the
> message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents.
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240807/1388a5ef/attachment.htm>

From julf at Julf.com  Wed Aug  7 15:09:58 2024
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 14:09:58 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ext] FW: Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81
In-Reply-To: <CAEGCQGvo8hEY=9+G-Uj6WhJya8ujOrpGOYaDjkrPDdAN7mYBVQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E00782D0-2A5A-4357-9A86-B5D310B80C6C@icann.org>
 <32145614-c62d-4ed3-a3b9-f7692d7cd2ea@Julf.com>
 <CAEGCQGvo8hEY=9+G-Uj6WhJya8ujOrpGOYaDjkrPDdAN7mYBVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b20dd97c-c7a1-4920-be16-98cec0484189@Julf.com>

Thanks Raymond!

	Julf

On 07/08/2024 13:56, Raymond Mamattah wrote:
> Well-done to Mason and Julf for pushing for this day zero meeting at 
> ICANN81.
> 
> Raymond Mamattah
> linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/raymond-selorm-mamattah/> facebook 
> <https://www.facebook.com/selorm.mamattah> twitter 
> <https://twitter.com/RMamattah>
> Accra, Ghana
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 9:25?AM Johan Helsingius via NCSG-PC 
> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     -------- Forwarded Message --------
>     Subject:? ? ? ? Re: [Ext] FW: Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81
>     Date:? ?Mon, 5 Aug 2024 21:03:20 +0000
>     From:? ?Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
>     To:? ? ?Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie) <MCole at perkinscoie.com
>     <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>>, Sally Costerton
>     <sally.costerton at icann.org <mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org>>,
>     Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org <mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org>>,
>     Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org
>     <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org>>
>     CC:? ? ?Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>
> 
> 
> 
>     Dear Mason and Julf,
> 
>     With thanks for your patience and understanding, we?ve discussed the
>     budget, requirements and needs with our colleagues from the Meetings
>     and
>     other teams that support the ICANN Public Meetings. I?m very pleased to
>     inform you that we believe we will be able to support the
>     Non-Contracted
>     Parties House (NCPH) Day Zero event request, as outlined in your
>     proposal. Carlos and his team will be in touch with you shortly, to
>     work
>     out the finer details as to the program and logistics, as well as to
>     formalize and finalize the support needs for this meeting.
> 
>     Thank you for your continued commitment to our shared mission and to
>     your collaborative style of working together. Our team is very happy to
>     support you and your objectives for this meeting at ICANN81.
> 
>     Cheers
> 
>     Mary
> 
>     *From: *"Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie)" <MCole at perkinscoie.com
>     <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>>
>     *Date: *Monday, July 29, 2024 at 11:57 PM
>     *To: *Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>,
>     Sally Costerton
>     <sally.costerton at icann.org <mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org>>,
>     Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org <mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org>>,
>     Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org
>     <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org>>
>     *Cc: *Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>
>     *Subject: *RE: [Ext] FW: Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81
> 
>     Thanks Mary for the update.? Looking forward to hearing more soon.
> 
>     *Mason Cole**| **Perkins Coie LLP*
> 
>     *INTERNET GOVERNANCE ADVISOR*
> 
>     1120 N.W. Couch Street Tenth Floor
> 
>     Portland, OR 97209-4128
> 
>     D. +1.503.727.2074
> 
>     E. MCole at perkinscoie.com <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>
>     <mailto:%20MCole at perkinscoie.com <mailto:20MCole at perkinscoie.com>>
> 
>     *From:* Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
>     *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2024 8:55 AM
>     *To:* Cole, Mason (POR) <MCole at perkinscoie.com
>     <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>>; Sally Costerton
>     <sally.costerton at icann.org <mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org>>;
>     Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org <mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org>>;
>     Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org
>     <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org>>
>     *Cc:* Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>
>     *Subject:* Re: [Ext] FW: Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81
> 
>     Dear Mason and Julf,
> 
>     Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your request.
>     As you may have guessed, we have been looking at the likely cost,
>     logistics and resourcing needs for this event, with Andrea?s and
>     Carlos?
>     very able assistance. We are finalizing things now and I very much hope
>     that we will be able to get back to you within the next day or two.
>     Thank you for your patience and understanding!
> 
>     Cheers
> 
>     Mary
> 
>     *From: *"Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie)" <MCole at perkinscoie.com
>     <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>
>     <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>>>
>     *Date: *Monday, July 29, 2024 at 11:26 PM
>     *To: *Sally Costerton <sally.costerton at icann.org
>     <mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org>
>     <mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org
>     <mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org>>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org
>     <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>     <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>>, Carlos
>     Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org <mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org>
>     <mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org <mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org>>>,
>     Andrea Glandon
>     <andrea.glandon at icann.org <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org>
>     <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org>>>
>     *Cc: *Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com <mailto:julf at Julf.com
>     <mailto:julf at Julf.com>>>
>     *Subject: *[Ext] FW: Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81
> 
>     Greetings all ?
> 
>     Julf and I have yet to hear back regarding the attached proposal for a
>     one-day Day 0 meeting prior to ICANN81 in Istanbul.? Some of our
>     members
>     would like to proceed with travel booking, and it would be helpful to
>     know whether they should accommodate this proposed meeting.? We also
>     are
>     mindful of the approaching time for sponsored travelers to make
>     arrangements.
> 
>     May we have an update please?
> 
>     Many thanks ?
> 
>     Mason and Julf
> 
>     *Mason Cole**| **Perkins Coie LLP*
> 
>     *INTERNET GOVERNANCE ADVISOR*
> 
>     1120 N.W. Couch Street Tenth Floor
> 
>     Portland, OR 97209-4128
> 
>     D. +1.503.727.2074
> 
>     E. MCole at perkinscoie.com <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>
>     <mailto:%20MCole at perkinscoie.com <mailto:20MCole at perkinscoie.com>>
> 
>     *From:* Cole, Mason (POR) <MCole at perkinscoie.com
>     <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>
>     <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>>>
>     *Sent:* Thursday, June 27, 2024 10:11 AM
>     *To:* Sally Costerton <sally.costerton at icann.org
>     <mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org>
>     <mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org
>     <mailto:sally.costerton at icann.org>>>; Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org
>     <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>     <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>>; Carlos
>     Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org <mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org>
>     <mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org <mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org>>>;
>     Andrea Glandon
>     <andrea.glandon at icann.org <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org>
>     <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org <mailto:andrea.glandon at icann.org>>>
>     *Cc:* Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com <mailto:julf at julf.com>
>     <mailto:julf at julf.com <mailto:julf at julf.com>>>
>     *Subject:* Proposal: NCPH Day 0 Meeting ICANN81
> 
>     Dear Sally, Mary, Carlos and Andrea (cc Julf) ?
> 
>     On behalf of the CSG and NCSG, Julf and I respectfully submit the
>     attached proposal for a Day 0 meeting of the Non-Contracted Party House
>     during ICANN81 in Istanbul.? We trust the request is in good order, and
>     look forward to your consideration of the request.
> 
>     You?ll recall that the NCPH met for a similar Day 0 event at ICANN78 in
>     Hamburg, where we made substantial progress on the joint work of our
>     house.? The objective of the proposed ICANN81 meeting not only is to
>     further strengthen our cooperative relationship, but to advance
>     specific
>     policy work.? We also are hopeful that, as was the case for the
>     Contracted Party Summit in May, we may have an opportunity to interact
>     with and brief ICANN Board members about issues important to the NCPH,
>     according to their availability.? Our planned one-day meeting will be
>     substantive and, we?re confident, will yield visible and productive
>     outcomes that we plan to share broadly with the community and ICANN Org.
> 
>     Thank you for your consideration of this request.? Should you have
>     questions or suggestions, Julf and I remain available to you.? We
>     eagerly anticipate your reply.
> 
>     Kind regards ?
> 
>     Mason Cole (for the CSG) and Julf Helsingius (for the NCSG)
> 
>     *Mason Cole**| **Perkins Coie LLP*
> 
>     *INTERNET GOVERNANCE ADVISOR*
> 
>     1120 N.W. Couch Street Tenth Floor
> 
>     Portland, OR 97209-4128
> 
>     D. +1.503.727.2074
> 
>     E. MCole at perkinscoie.com <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>
>     <mailto:%20MCole at perkinscoie.com <mailto:20MCole at perkinscoie.com>>
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>     NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
>     information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender
>     by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments
>     without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>     NOTICE: This communication from Perkins Coie LLP may contain privileged
>     or other confidential information. If you have received it in error,
>     please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the
>     message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents.
>     Thank you.
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>     NOTICE: This communication from Perkins Coie LLP may contain privileged
>     or other confidential information. If you have received it in error,
>     please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the
>     message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents.
>     Thank you.
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     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 Aug  8 11:52:13 2024
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 10:52:13 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN81 0-day
Message-ID: <c477b72a-091b-40f5-8b2a-2cfe954437ff@Julf.com>

Dear NCSG councillors and EC members,

As the NCPH 0-day has been approved, please account for the extra day
in Istanbul in your planning. We are assuming November 8 to be a full
working day for us.

	Julf


From bruna.mrtns at gmail.com  Thu Aug  8 12:04:02 2024
From: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com (Bruna Martins dos Santos)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 11:04:02 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] ICANN81 0-day
In-Reply-To: <c477b72a-091b-40f5-8b2a-2cfe954437ff@Julf.com>
References: <c477b72a-091b-40f5-8b2a-2cfe954437ff@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <CADAEEV3DcXWrE45iBKrNHFtg8KjALbQtnYERVBCm8HEhh-Q03w@mail.gmail.com>

Hello, Julf, thanks for the heads up!

Do we know whether the email for booking has been sent already ? or shall
we expect it in September ?

On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 10:52?AM Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC <
ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

> Dear NCSG councillors and EC members,
>
> As the NCPH 0-day has been approved, please account for the extra day
> in Istanbul in your planning. We are assuming November 8 to be a full
> working day for us.
>
>         Julf
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>


-- 

*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

Global Campaigns Manager | Digital Action <http://digitalaction.co>

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/20240808/188106e3/attachment.htm>

From julf at Julf.com  Thu Aug  8 12:11:49 2024
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 11:11:49 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] ICANN81 0-day
In-Reply-To: <CADAEEV3DcXWrE45iBKrNHFtg8KjALbQtnYERVBCm8HEhh-Q03w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c477b72a-091b-40f5-8b2a-2cfe954437ff@Julf.com>
 <CADAEEV3DcXWrE45iBKrNHFtg8KjALbQtnYERVBCm8HEhh-Q03w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <362cdee7-4ac7-4f94-a748-b0b0b1f57325@Julf.com>

It has not been sent yet, but I don't know when we'll get it.
	
	Julf


On 08/08/2024 11:04, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote:
> Hello, Julf, thanks for the heads up!
> 
> Do we know?whether the email for booking has been sent already ? or 
> shall we expect it in September ?
> 
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 10:52?AM Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC 
> <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
> 
>     Dear NCSG councillors and EC members,
> 
>     As the NCPH 0-day has been approved, please account for the extra day
>     in Istanbul in your planning. We are assuming November 8 to be a full
>     working day for us.
> 
>      ? ? ? ? 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>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> */Bruna Martins dos Santos
> /*
> 
> Global Campaigns Manager | Digital Action <http://digitalaction.co>
> 
> 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 adisabolutifeo at gmail.com  Thu Aug  8 08:32:52 2024
From: adisabolutifeo at gmail.com (Bolutife Adisa)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 07:32:52 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Input on SPIRT Charter approval by Council
Message-ID: <62F938E6-1C2A-4E40-B3AE-2D144AC68E30@gmail.com>

Hi Tomslin,

As discussed in our previous PC meeting, I have highlighted below a summarised explanation of my position regarding the SPIRT charter - for consideration by the council. 

According to the draft charter, the membership criteria for SPIRT is ?open to all?, not subject to ?conflict of interest? criteria, and based solely on the interest and expertise of candidates, hence, the important question:

?How else does ICANN ensure that SPRIT membership does not evolve into a group with only commercial-driven interests??

I personally believe it is as important to consider the expertise of the volunteers as it is to consider the stakeholder-interests that they may represent. Obviously, there is a strong incentive for commercial stakeholders with big budget to send their big names and policy experts to take up spaces like this within ICANN. Therefore, despite the approval of the SPIRT charter document, I would recommend the council highlight the following - as a moral obligation and best practice - 

?ICANN org must endeavour to include safeguards in the application or selection process to ensure that non-commercial voices are not completely excluded from the SPIRT membership?.

This would remove the need for another extension of the timeline and allow for demoing approval process. 

Best regards,
Bolu. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240808/5f7bb866/attachment.htm>

From Kathy at KathyKleiman.com  Thu Aug  8 16:00:32 2024
From: Kathy at KathyKleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 09:00:32 -0400
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Input on SPIRT Charter approval by Council
In-Reply-To: <62F938E6-1C2A-4E40-B3AE-2D144AC68E30@gmail.com>
References: <62F938E6-1C2A-4E40-B3AE-2D144AC68E30@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a27a9949-511f-4f97-8851-abfbb77e4dc0@KathyKleiman.com>

This is a very good idea, Bolu.

Support 100%.

Best, Kathy

On 8/8/2024 1:32 AM, Bolutife Adisa wrote:

> Hi Tomslin,
>
>
> As discussed in our previous PC meeting, I have highlighted below a 
> summarised explanation of my position regarding the SPIRT charter - 
> for consideration by the council.
>
>
> According to the draft charter, the membership criteria for SPIRT is 
> ?open to all?, not subject to ?conflict of interest? criteria, and 
> based solely on the interest and expertise of candidates, hence, the 
> important question:
>
>
> ?How else does ICANN ensure that SPRIT membership does not evolve into 
> a group with only commercial-driven interests??
>
>
> I personally believe it is as important to consider the expertise of 
> the volunteers as it is to consider the stakeholder-interests that 
> they may represent. Obviously, there is a strong incentive for 
> commercial stakeholders with big budget to send their big names and 
> policy experts to take up spaces like this within ICANN. Therefore, 
> despite the approval of the SPIRT charter document, I would recommend 
> the council highlight the following - as a moral obligation and best 
> practice -
>
>
> ?ICANN org must endeavour to include safeguards in the application or 
> selection process to ensure that non-commercial voices are not 
> completely excluded from the SPIRT membership?.
>
>
> This would remove the need for another extension of the timeline and 
> allow for demoing approval process.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bolu.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240808/c4633497/attachment.htm>

From mesumbeslin at gmail.com  Fri Aug  9 00:26:07 2024
From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 07:26:07 +1000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Input on SPIRT Charter approval by Council
In-Reply-To: <62F938E6-1C2A-4E40-B3AE-2D144AC68E30@gmail.com>
References: <62F938E6-1C2A-4E40-B3AE-2D144AC68E30@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM8DdeW5EhJ735uVacPZQTK8s072QsxN0Q0Srs6TTMtLtD9uFg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Bolu. The concern was put on the record by myself.

Warmly,
Tomslin



On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 15:33, Bolutife Adisa <adisabolutifeo at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Tomslin,
>
>
> As discussed in our previous PC meeting, I have highlighted below a
> summarised explanation of my position regarding the SPIRT charter - for
> consideration by the council.
>
>
> According to the draft charter, the membership criteria for SPIRT is ?open
> to all?, not subject to ?conflict of interest? criteria, and based solely
> on the interest and expertise of candidates, hence, the important question:
>
>
> ?How else does ICANN ensure that SPRIT membership does not evolve into a
> group with only commercial-driven interests??
>
>
> I personally believe it is as important to consider the expertise of the
> volunteers as it is to consider the stakeholder-interests that they may
> represent. Obviously, there is a strong incentive for commercial
> stakeholders with big budget to send their big names and policy experts to
> take up spaces like this within ICANN. Therefore, despite the approval of
> the SPIRT charter document, I would recommend the council highlight the
> following - as a moral obligation and best practice -
>
>
> ?ICANN org must endeavour to include safeguards in the application or
> selection process to ensure that non-commercial voices are not completely
> excluded from the SPIRT membership?.
>
>
> This would remove the need for another extension of the timeline and allow
> for demoing approval process.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bolu.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240809/db16ec0a/attachment.htm>

From julf at Julf.com  Tue Aug 20 11:47:00 2024
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 10:47:00 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] ICANN81
 Community Session topic and updated Block Schedule
In-Reply-To: <AB814566-2549-480C-9919-2092332CD300@icann.org>
References: <AB814566-2549-480C-9919-2092332CD300@icann.org>
Message-ID: <671d840a-6565-4f04-b1b6-161d717b3603@Julf.com>

FYI...

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] ICANN81 Community Session 
topic and updated Block Schedule
Date: 	Mon, 19 Aug 2024 16:31:30 +0000
From: 	Nathalie Peregrine via SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning 
<soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>
Reply-To: 	Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
To: 	soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org 
<soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>



Dear all,

After further discussion amongst the ccNSO and ALAC topic submitters, 
Alejandra and Justine, it was decided to select the ICANN81 topic by 
using a random selection online tool.

As per below, the topic selected for ICANN81 is the ALAC topic. Our 
colleagues will be in touch with the session topic submitters for next 
steps.

Please also note the block schedule, attached to this email, has been 
updated with the following changes:

  1. Thursday afternoon Board Placeholder session replaced with ICANN
     Board and RSSAC meeting
  2. Thursday morning ICANN Board and ASO meeting replaced with the
     Placeholder Empowered Community Session. This is a conflicted
     session where Decisional Participant Representatives? attendance
     will be expected but other sessions can take place at the same time.
  3. Wednesday morning ICANN Board and RSSAC meeting replaced with the
     ICANN Board and ASO session.
Thank you to all for the fruitful discussions! Please let us know if you 
have any questions or comments.

Kind regards,

Nathalie
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN81- AGM Istanbul DRAFT v.4 14 August 2024 - Sheet1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 57145 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240820/f8111f27/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list -- soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning-leave at icann.org

_______________________________________________
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.

From julf at Julf.com  Tue Aug 20 15:50:58 2024
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 14:50:58 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Draft ICANN81 GNSO Schedule
In-Reply-To: <08C7B0C4-BCB0-4B2F-9D43-ACAD3FC2AB00@icann.org>
References: <08C7B0C4-BCB0-4B2F-9D43-ACAD3FC2AB00@icann.org>
Message-ID: <341eebad-a3e6-4961-b168-2ba276358077@Julf.com>




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[NCUC-EC] Draft ICANN81 GNSO Schedule
Date: 	Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:50:11 +0000
From: 	Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
To: 	ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>, npoc-ec at icann.org 
<npoc-ec at icann.org>, Exec. Comm <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>



Hello all,

Please find attached a draft GNSO schedule for ICANN81. Please let me 
know if you see a conflict so that I can try to move it. As a note, this 
is still a draft so changes could still happen.

Thanks!

*Andrea Glandon*

Policy Operations Sr. Coordinator

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

*Skype ID:*acglandon76
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN81 GNSO Draft Schedule & Community requests - Draft tab.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 55302 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240820/689cc565/attachment.pdf>

From julf at Julf.com  Wed Aug 28 18:23:42 2024
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 17:23:42 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Information Session to the ICANN Board
In-Reply-To: <F1DA63D0-A6D7-4FD8-BA72-3B9D0AF08DC3@icann.org>
References: <F1DA63D0-A6D7-4FD8-BA72-3B9D0AF08DC3@icann.org>
Message-ID: <1354becd-1d35-4613-a605-0d4fe89c24f1@Julf.com>

FYI - seems we do get to talk to the Board during the day 0.

	Julf

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Information Session to the ICANN Board
Date: 	Tue, 27 Aug 2024 14:16:34 +0000
From: 	Vinciane Koenigsfeld <vinciane.koenigsfeld at icann.org>
To: 	julf at julf.com <julf at julf.com>, mcole at perkinscoie.com 
<mcole at perkinscoie.com>
CC: 	Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org>



*/Please see the attached letter sent on behalf of Tripti Sinha, Chair, 
ICANN Board of Directors/*

DearJulf, Dear Mason,

We were informed by our Policy colleagues that you will be in Istanbul 
on Friday 8 November, prior to the upcoming ICANN81 meeting, and we 
would like to use the opportunity to organize such a session.

Would you be so kind as to let us know if you could potentially be 
available for 90mn on Friday 8 November? We believe that we could aim at 
*_13:30-15:00_*. Please let us know if this slot could work for you.

Many thanks in advance,

Vinciane

Vinciane Koenigsfeld

VP Board Operations ? ICANN

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Vinciane.koenigsfeld at icann.org <mailto:Vinciane.koenigsfeld at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2024-08-27 Letter to CSG - NCSG - Informational Sessions with the Board .pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 187354 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240828/5db29b4b/attachment.pdf>

From andrea.glandon at icann.org  Thu Aug 29 16:43:45 2024
From: andrea.glandon at icann.org (Andrea Glandon)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 13:43:45 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-PC] DOODLE Please Complete ASAP | NCSG PC Meeting
Message-ID: <F1F2B2E9-C775-44EF-A629-2AD2ACB73196@icann.org>

Hello all,

Please complete the Doodle below to schedule a 30 minute meeting with NCSG PC and Kathy Kleiman to receive an update on the Singulars and Plurals supplementary recommendation.

https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/bDP8V6Bb

Thanks!
Andrea Glandon
Policy Operations Sr. 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/20240829/cada0a09/attachment.htm>

From julf at Julf.com  Thu Aug 29 17:23:07 2024
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 16:23:07 +0200
Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Updated ICANN81
 Block Schedule
In-Reply-To: <BE497250-B1B0-49BE-958E-8125DDF31361@icann.org>
References: <BE497250-B1B0-49BE-958E-8125DDF31361@icann.org>
Message-ID: <2dd5b937-11dc-4b4f-ba4e-ca1a68536f02@Julf.com>




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] Updated ICANN81 Block 
Schedule
Date: 	Thu, 29 Aug 2024 12:18:30 +0000
From: 	Nathalie Peregrine via SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning 
<soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>
Reply-To: 	Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
To: 	soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org 
<soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning at icann.org>



Dear all,

Please find the latest version of the ICANN81 Block Schedule. The only 
adjustment made stems from a request from the Board and the GAC 
regarding their joint session:

   * Meeting moved from the 15:00 slot to the 13:15 slot on the same day,
     Tuesday.

Hopefully this is of little impact to your respective schedules!

Thank you!

Nathalie
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN81- AGM Istanbul DRAFT v.5 29 August 2024 - Sheet1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 57145 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240829/cbdaef3e/attachment.pdf>