From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Fri Mar 1 02:50:14 2024 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 20:50:14 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-EC] RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed Board Members In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: I am happy to attend, Julf. Warmly, Tomslin On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, 12:48 Johan Helsingius via NCSG-PC, < ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > We need to know who is attending. > > Julf > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-EC] RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with > GNSO > Appointed Board Members > Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:57:04 +0000 > From: Andrea Glandon via NCSG-EC > Reply-To: Andrea Glandon > To: ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is , > csg-excomm at icann.org > , Paul McGrady > > > > Hello all, > > Board Ops has confirmed Monday, 04 March, 730am local time for NCPH to > meet with Becky and Chris. I have an email out asking which hotel they > are staying at and will let everyone know. > > Thanks! > > Kind Regards, > > Andrea > > *From: *Andrea Glandon > *Date: *Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 09:48 > *To: *"ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is" , > "csg-excomm at icann.org" , Paul McGrady > > *Cc: *Brenda Brewer , Daniel Gluck > , Carlos Reyes , Andrea > Glandon > *Subject: *Re: RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed > Board Members > > Hello all, > > I have received a response from the BC that Monday, Wednesday or > Thursday would work for breakfast. > > Any other suggestions? Do any of those days NOT work for anyone? Please > respond by *Friday, 09 February at 16:00 UTC*. I will respond to Board > Ops with the above unless I hear differently by Friday. > > Thanks! > > Kind Regards, > > Andrea > > *From: *Andrea Glandon > *Date: *Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 09:08 > *To: *"ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is" , > "csg-excomm at icann.org" , Paul McGrady > > *Cc: *Brenda Brewer , Daniel Gluck > , Carlos Reyes , Andrea > Glandon > *Subject: *RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed > Board Members > > Hello all, > > One of the takeaways from the NCPH Day Zero meeting in Hamburg was to > try to schedule a breakfast with ICANN Board Members at ICANN Public > Meetings. I have reached out to Board Ops and a breakfast with the GNSO > appointed Board Members, Becky Burr and Chris Buckridge, is possible. > > I can work with Board Ops to find a day that works for both Becky and > Chris. Are there specific days that would work for the NCPH Executive team? > > I look forward to your response so we can get this scheduled. > > Thanks! > > *Andrea Glandon* > > Policy Operations Coordinator > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > *Skype ID:*acglandon76 > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Mar 1 17:24:30 2024 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie E Perrin) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 10:24:30 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: NCPH Work Session agenda In-Reply-To: <033e94d1-8499-4d1a-96c8-d569542b7c57@Julf.com> References: <033e94d1-8499-4d1a-96c8-d569542b7c57@Julf.com> Message-ID: <5f64d6ae-5983-442d-afd3-5d890578fa23@mail.utoronto.ca> Gosh I wish people would get in the habit of including the time in their agendas.? I was always a renegade public servant, but one thing I always appreciated was insistence on having agendas ALWAYs include a time date and place. cheers Stephanie PS.? Item 2 requires some thought.? We do not want folks who are not following the work closely to start establishing counter-productive relationships with CSG members.? this is something the CSG are good at, given many are lobbiests.? This has happened in the past, to our detriment.? I know I sound undemocratic.....tough.? Facts are facts. On 2024-02-28 12:22 p.m., Johan Helsingius via NCSG-PC wrote: > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject:???? NCPH Work Session agenda > Date:???? Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:02:34 +0000 > From:???? philippe.fouquart at orange.com > To:???? Johan Helsingius > CC:???? Wendy Profit via Csg-excomm > > > > Hi Julf, > > Hope this finds you well. > > The CSG is looking forward to our ICANN79 meeting with the NCSG on > Tuesday. Here?s a list of agenda items that we offer for your > consideration, suggestions are obviously welcome: > > ?1. Review on action items from ICANN78 > ???? 1. Team 14 update > ???? 2. Establish a mailing list for NCPH and decide who should be on it > ???? 3. Establish (or at least further populate) a wiki for the NCPH > ???? 4. Update of the intersessional meeting > ?2. Common points of view on measurement of the impact of the contract > ??? amendments on DNS abuse, including what would be helpful metrics and > ??? where they would come from.? For example, we don?t want to rely > ??? solely on ICANN?s self-reporting on abuse stats but need > ??? authoritative third-party input. > ?3. WSIS+20: any particular actions planned from our respective SGs? > ??? Anything the House should do collectively? > > Regards, > > Philippe, on behalf of the CSG > > Orange Restricted > > > Orange Restricted > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les > messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, > deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or > privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have > been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Mar 1 17:37:02 2024 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie E Perrin) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 10:37:02 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-EC] RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed Board Members In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Any chance somebody could zoom/skype/signal me in by phone? Sorry not to be there in person but duty called. cheers Steph On 2024-02-29 7:50 p.m., Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > I am happy to attend, Julf. > > Warmly, > Tomslin > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, 12:48 Johan Helsingius via NCSG-PC, > wrote: > > We need to know who is attending. > > ? ? ? ? Julf > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject:? ? ? ? Re: [NCSG-EC] RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast > with GNSO > Appointed Board Members > Date:? ?Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:57:04 +0000 > From:? ?Andrea Glandon via NCSG-EC > Reply-To:? ? ? ?Andrea Glandon > To: ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is , > csg-excomm at icann.org > , Paul McGrady > > > > Hello all, > > Board Ops has confirmed Monday, 04 March, 730am local time for > NCPH to > meet with Becky and Chris. I have an email out asking which hotel > they > are staying at and will let everyone know. > > Thanks! > > Kind Regards, > > Andrea > > *From: *Andrea Glandon > *Date: *Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 09:48 > *To: *"ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is" , > "csg-excomm at icann.org" , Paul McGrady > > *Cc: *Brenda Brewer , Daniel Gluck > , Carlos Reyes , > Andrea > Glandon > *Subject: *Re: RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO > Appointed > Board Members > > Hello all, > > I have received a response from the BC that Monday, Wednesday or > Thursday would work for breakfast. > > Any other suggestions? Do any of those days NOT work for anyone? > Please > respond by *Friday, 09 February at 16:00 UTC*. I will respond to > Board > Ops with the above unless I hear differently by Friday. > > Thanks! > > Kind Regards, > > Andrea > > *From: *Andrea Glandon > *Date: *Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 09:08 > *To: *"ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is" , > "csg-excomm at icann.org" , Paul McGrady > > *Cc: *Brenda Brewer , Daniel Gluck > , Carlos Reyes , > Andrea > Glandon > *Subject: *RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed > Board Members > > Hello all, > > One of the takeaways from the NCPH Day Zero meeting in Hamburg was to > try to schedule a breakfast with ICANN Board Members at ICANN Public > Meetings. I have reached out to Board Ops and a breakfast with the > GNSO > appointed Board Members, Becky Burr and Chris Buckridge, is possible. > > I can work with Board Ops to find a day that works for both Becky and > Chris. Are there specific days that would work for the NCPH > Executive team? > > I look forward to your response so we can get this scheduled. > > Thanks! > > *Andrea Glandon* > > Policy Operations Coordinator > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > *Skype ID:*acglandon76 > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manju at nii.org.tw Sat Mar 2 01:09:21 2024 From: manju at nii.org.tw (=?UTF-8?B?6Zmz5pu86Iy5IE1hbmp1IENoZW4=?=) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 08:09:21 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-EC] RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed Board Members In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Will be there! Best, Manju On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 11:37 Stephanie E Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Any chance somebody could zoom/skype/signal me in by phone? Sorry not to > be there in person but duty called. > > cheers Steph > On 2024-02-29 7:50 p.m., Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote: > > I am happy to attend, Julf. > > Warmly, > Tomslin > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, 12:48 Johan Helsingius via NCSG-PC, < > ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > >> We need to know who is attending. >> >> Julf >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-EC] RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with >> GNSO >> Appointed Board Members >> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:57:04 +0000 >> From: Andrea Glandon via NCSG-EC >> Reply-To: Andrea Glandon >> To: ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is , >> csg-excomm at icann.org >> , Paul McGrady >> >> >> >> Hello all, >> >> Board Ops has confirmed Monday, 04 March, 730am local time for NCPH to >> meet with Becky and Chris. I have an email out asking which hotel they >> are staying at and will let everyone know. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Andrea >> >> *From: *Andrea Glandon >> *Date: *Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 09:48 >> *To: *"ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is" , >> "csg-excomm at icann.org" , Paul McGrady >> >> *Cc: *Brenda Brewer , Daniel Gluck >> , Carlos Reyes , Andrea >> Glandon >> *Subject: *Re: RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed >> Board Members >> >> Hello all, >> >> I have received a response from the BC that Monday, Wednesday or >> Thursday would work for breakfast. >> >> Any other suggestions? Do any of those days NOT work for anyone? Please >> respond by *Friday, 09 February at 16:00 UTC*. I will respond to Board >> Ops with the above unless I hear differently by Friday. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Andrea >> >> *From: *Andrea Glandon >> *Date: *Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 09:08 >> *To: *"ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is" , >> "csg-excomm at icann.org" , Paul McGrady >> >> *Cc: *Brenda Brewer , Daniel Gluck >> , Carlos Reyes , Andrea >> Glandon >> *Subject: *RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed >> Board Members >> >> Hello all, >> >> One of the takeaways from the NCPH Day Zero meeting in Hamburg was to >> try to schedule a breakfast with ICANN Board Members at ICANN Public >> Meetings. I have reached out to Board Ops and a breakfast with the GNSO >> appointed Board Members, Becky Burr and Chris Buckridge, is possible. >> >> I can work with Board Ops to find a day that works for both Becky and >> Chris. Are there specific days that would work for the NCPH Executive >> team? >> >> I look forward to your response so we can get this scheduled. >> >> Thanks! >> >> *Andrea Glandon* >> >> Policy Operations Coordinator >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> *Skype ID:*acglandon76 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From compsoftnet at gmail.com Sat Mar 2 02:18:10 2024 From: compsoftnet at gmail.com (Akinremi Peter Taiwo) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 20:18:10 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-EC] RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed Board Members In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: I will be there too. On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, 12:48 pm Johan Helsingius via NCSG-PC, < ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > We need to know who is attending. > > Julf > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-EC] RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with > GNSO > Appointed Board Members > Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:57:04 +0000 > From: Andrea Glandon via NCSG-EC > Reply-To: Andrea Glandon > To: ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is , > csg-excomm at icann.org > , Paul McGrady > > > > Hello all, > > Board Ops has confirmed Monday, 04 March, 730am local time for NCPH to > meet with Becky and Chris. I have an email out asking which hotel they > are staying at and will let everyone know. > > Thanks! > > Kind Regards, > > Andrea > > *From: *Andrea Glandon > *Date: *Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 09:48 > *To: *"ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is" , > "csg-excomm at icann.org" , Paul McGrady > > *Cc: *Brenda Brewer , Daniel Gluck > , Carlos Reyes , Andrea > Glandon > *Subject: *Re: RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed > Board Members > > Hello all, > > I have received a response from the BC that Monday, Wednesday or > Thursday would work for breakfast. > > Any other suggestions? Do any of those days NOT work for anyone? Please > respond by *Friday, 09 February at 16:00 UTC*. I will respond to Board > Ops with the above unless I hear differently by Friday. > > Thanks! > > Kind Regards, > > Andrea > > *From: *Andrea Glandon > *Date: *Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 09:08 > *To: *"ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is" , > "csg-excomm at icann.org" , Paul McGrady > > *Cc: *Brenda Brewer , Daniel Gluck > , Carlos Reyes , Andrea > Glandon > *Subject: *RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed > Board Members > > Hello all, > > One of the takeaways from the NCPH Day Zero meeting in Hamburg was to > try to schedule a breakfast with ICANN Board Members at ICANN Public > Meetings. I have reached out to Board Ops and a breakfast with the GNSO > appointed Board Members, Becky Burr and Chris Buckridge, is possible. > > I can work with Board Ops to find a day that works for both Becky and > Chris. Are there specific days that would work for the NCPH Executive team? > > I look forward to your response so we can get this scheduled. > > Thanks! > > *Andrea Glandon* > > Policy Operations Coordinator > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > *Skype ID:*acglandon76 > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manju at nii.org.tw Sat Mar 2 23:16:58 2024 From: manju at nii.org.tw (=?UTF-8?B?6Zmz5pu86Iy5IE1hbmp1IENoZW4=?=) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 17:16:58 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Applicant Support Handbook Message-ID: Hi all, Below are the observations I shared during the Policy Meeting Generally I felt the process was indeed improved from the last round. Some improvements I noticed include: - Applicant could still apply for the strings if they are not qualified for Applicant Support. - Applicant have to meet the criteria of 'Public Responsibility Due Diligence'' (different from the Public Interest criteria from the last round). - Enhanced diversity in terms of eligibility requirements. (cause, size of entity, indegeous groups, non-profit...) - Updated financial stability criteria from the 'financial capabilities' criteria. However, there are also still a lot of blank space in the handbook, mostly regarding what kind of support a successful applicant can get. It is still unclear if a successful applicant will be able to access to these support: - An ASP training program (Pending Board consideration of the community?s supplemental policy recommendation (17.2) - Access to Application Counselors (Pending Board consideration of the community?s supplemental policy recommendation(17.2) - A [50-85%] reduction in New gTLD Program application and evaluation fees [which fees TBC] - A [bid credit or multiplier- TBD pending research results] applied to supported applicants participating in an ICANN Auction. - Reduced or waived base Registry Operator fees, should the supported applicant prevailing the gTLD program valuation and proceed to contracting and delegation. (Pending Board consideration of the community?s supplemental policy recommendation (17.2) I was actually surprised to see the last one as I remember it didn't make it to the SubPro final recommendations. I do recall a recent GAC advice about this though, so probably that's why. One thing I found interesting was that they strongly advise the applicant against revealing the strings they intend to apply when applying for applicant support. I don't know if this was the same for the last round. I was not particularly convinced by the reasons given in the Handbook and am curious of what you guys think. Another noticeable change is that the applicant will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis according to required criteria (public responsibility due diligence, financial need, and financial stability). This is very different from the scoring methods from the last round. Some observations, happy to hear what others think (: Best, Manju -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julf at julf.com Sun Mar 3 03:07:42 2024 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2024 02:07:42 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-EC] RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed Board Members In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Andrea, How many NCSG people do we have reserved space for? Julf On 02/03/2024 01:18, Akinremi Peter Taiwo wrote: > I will be there too. > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, 12:48 pm Johan Helsingius via NCSG-PC, > > wrote: > > We need to know who is attending. > > ? ? ? ? Julf > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject:? ? ? ? Re: [NCSG-EC] RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast > with GNSO > Appointed Board Members > Date:? ?Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:57:04 +0000 > From:? ?Andrea Glandon via NCSG-EC

> > Reply-To:? ? ? ?Andrea Glandon > > To: ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is > >, > csg-excomm at icann.org > >, Paul McGrady > > > > > > Hello all, > > Board Ops has confirmed Monday, 04 March, 730am local time for NCPH to > meet with Becky and Chris. I have an email out asking which hotel they > are staying at and will let everyone know. > > Thanks! > > Kind Regards, > > Andrea > > *From: *Andrea Glandon > > *Date: *Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 09:48 > *To: *"ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is " > >, > "csg-excomm at icann.org " > >, Paul McGrady > > > *Cc: *Brenda Brewer >, Daniel Gluck > >, Carlos > Reyes >, Andrea > Glandon > > *Subject: *Re: RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed > Board Members > > Hello all, > > I have received a response from the BC that Monday, Wednesday or > Thursday would work for breakfast. > > Any other suggestions? Do any of those days NOT work for anyone? Please > respond by *Friday, 09 February at 16:00 UTC*. I will respond to Board > Ops with the above unless I hear differently by Friday. > > Thanks! > > Kind Regards, > > Andrea > > *From: *Andrea Glandon > > *Date: *Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 09:08 > *To: *"ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is " > >, > "csg-excomm at icann.org " > >, Paul McGrady > > > *Cc: *Brenda Brewer >, Daniel Gluck > >, Carlos > Reyes >, Andrea > Glandon > > *Subject: *RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed > Board Members > > Hello all, > > One of the takeaways from the NCPH Day Zero meeting in Hamburg was to > try to schedule a breakfast with ICANN Board Members at ICANN Public > Meetings. I have reached out to Board Ops and a breakfast with the GNSO > appointed Board Members, Becky Burr and Chris Buckridge, is possible. > > I can work with Board Ops to find a day that works for both Becky and > Chris. Are there specific days that would work for the NCPH > Executive team? > > I look forward to your response so we can get this scheduled. > > Thanks! > > *Andrea Glandon* > > Policy Operations Coordinator > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > *Skype ID:*acglandon76 > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > From andrea.glandon at icann.org Sun Mar 3 03:40:37 2024 From: andrea.glandon at icann.org (Andrea Glandon) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2024 01:40:37 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Ext] Re: Fwd: [NCSG-EC] RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed Board Members In-Reply-To: References:

, Message-ID: 5. I have a total of 14 names for breakfast. > On Mar 2, 2024, at 9:08?PM, Johan Helsingius wrote: > > ?Andrea, > > How many NCSG people do we have reserved space for? > > Julf > > >> On 02/03/2024 01:18, Akinremi Peter Taiwo wrote: >> I will be there too. >> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, 12:48 pm Johan Helsingius via NCSG-PC, > wrote: >> We need to know who is attending. >> Julf >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-EC] RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast >> with GNSO >> Appointed Board Members >> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 13:57:04 +0000 >> From: Andrea Glandon via NCSG-EC > > >> Reply-To: Andrea Glandon > > >> To: ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is >> >, >> csg-excomm at icann.org >> >, Paul McGrady >> > >> Hello all, >> Board Ops has confirmed Monday, 04 March, 730am local time for NCPH to >> meet with Becky and Chris. I have an email out asking which hotel they >> are staying at and will let everyone know. >> Thanks! >> Kind Regards, >> Andrea >> *From: *Andrea Glandon > > >> *Date: *Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 09:48 >> *To: *"ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is " >> >, >> "csg-excomm at icann.org " >> >, Paul McGrady >> > >> *Cc: *Brenda Brewer > >, Daniel Gluck >> >, Carlos >> Reyes >, Andrea >> Glandon > >> *Subject: *Re: RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed >> Board Members >> Hello all, >> I have received a response from the BC that Monday, Wednesday or >> Thursday would work for breakfast. >> Any other suggestions? Do any of those days NOT work for anyone? Please >> respond by *Friday, 09 February at 16:00 UTC*. I will respond to Board >> Ops with the above unless I hear differently by Friday. >> Thanks! >> Kind Regards, >> Andrea >> *From: *Andrea Glandon > > >> *Date: *Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 09:08 >> *To: *"ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is " >> >, >> "csg-excomm at icann.org " >> >, Paul McGrady >> > >> *Cc: *Brenda Brewer > >, Daniel Gluck >> >, Carlos >> Reyes >, Andrea >> Glandon > >> *Subject: *RESPONSE REQUESTED-ICANN79 Breakfast with GNSO Appointed >> Board Members >> Hello all, >> One of the takeaways from the NCPH Day Zero meeting in Hamburg was to >> try to schedule a breakfast with ICANN Board Members at ICANN Public >> Meetings. I have reached out to Board Ops and a breakfast with the GNSO >> appointed Board Members, Becky Burr and Chris Buckridge, is possible. >> I can work with Board Ops to find a day that works for both Becky and >> Chris. Are there specific days that would work for the NCPH >> Executive team? >> I look forward to your response so we can get this scheduled. >> Thanks! >> *Andrea Glandon* >> Policy Operations Coordinator >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> *Skype ID:*acglandon76 >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc__;!!PtGJab4!5vhfx8iX8bXAjZBqsQ982dD5olUHPl1ZX7rxl4nWigpcU-eoHISS_gEXTs1UNJnGV47xIuGOU-Qz6Y9ZAwtf$ [lists[.]ncsg[.]is] >> From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Sun Mar 3 18:47:25 2024 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2024 12:47:25 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS] Public Comment: Proposed Bylaws Updates to Limit Access to Accountability Mechanisms Message-ID: Dear members, As you are aware, part of Recommendation #7 from the the CCWG-AP final report stated that ICANN?s existing accountability mechanisms ? the Independent Review Process (IRP) or the Reconsideration Process ? could not be used to challenge decisions made by the Independent Applications Assessment Panel on individual applications within the Grant Program. At ICANN78 (Hamburg), the Board decided that it will direct ICANN org to use the contractual terms and conditions required to apply for the Grant Program to obtain applicant agreement that they cannot use ICANN?s accountability mechanisms to challenge any individual decision taken on their application within the ICANN Grant Program. Many in the community were unhappy with this approach the board decided to take and a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) was even sent by the IPC to the board. In this proposal that is open for public comment, the Board is proposing Bylaws Updates to Limit Access to Accountability Mechanisms whenever the community asks for such limitations. We are seeking volunteers who can review this proposal and assess/comment on behalf of NCSG. Let me know if you'd like to volunteer. Deadline to submit the comment is 15 April 2024 but we expect the draft about 2 weeks before then. You can find more information here: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-bylaws-updates-to-limit-access-to-accountability-mechanisms-27-02-2024 I have created a draft Google doc for the comment here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fxmm1UyotTz1MDr66qUE0Xlh60b_3e3jZ0Z4UnO-79I/edit?usp=sharing Warmly, Tomslin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca Sun Mar 10 21:33:28 2024 From: stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca (Stephanie E Perrin) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 15:33:28 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on the CCOICI survey Message-ID: I hope you are all happily home again after a safe and relaxing trip, luggage in tow.? If not, my sympathies. Here is a google doc with my suggested comments on the survey. Frankly, while we are not happy with the outcome of the CCOICI, I cannot see any point in trying out a different structure.? Maybe we can fix the one we have.? Maybe we should have brought in ethics and COI experts to help the task force.? We cannot consider changing the voting procedure at Council, we depend on the ability to object ourselves.? However, we need to not repeat what happened, and we need to get back at fixing the SOIs. Comments welcome, sorry for the delay but I had to go over the meetings and the root documents. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KYB7RxmiYymxnyTxJ74ZOwG0EJ-N0GlwRrOEeiWvSwc/edit?usp=sharing cheers Steph Perrin PS I am hopeless with google documents, hate them, so I wont be offended if you tell me I set it up all wrong.? Hopefully you can make suggestions From manju at nii.org.tw Mon Mar 11 04:24:42 2024 From: manju at nii.org.tw (=?UTF-8?B?6Zmz5pu86Iy5IE1hbmp1IENoZW4=?=) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:24:42 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on the CCOICI survey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Spephanie, I can't assess the google doc, guess it'd be the same for others too. Maybe if you could simply circulate the response in word document and we can suggest edits (if any) in this mailing thread. Best, Manju On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 3:33?AM Stephanie E Perrin < stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> wrote: > I hope you are all happily home again after a safe and relaxing trip, > luggage in tow. If not, my sympathies. > > Here is a google doc with my suggested comments on the survey. Frankly, > while we are not happy with the outcome of the CCOICI, I cannot see any > point in trying out a different structure. Maybe we can fix the one we > have. Maybe we should have brought in ethics and COI experts to help > the task force. We cannot consider changing the voting procedure at > Council, we depend on the ability to object ourselves. However, we need > to not repeat what happened, and we need to get back at fixing the SOIs. > > Comments welcome, sorry for the delay but I had to go over the meetings > and the root documents. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KYB7RxmiYymxnyTxJ74ZOwG0EJ-N0GlwRrOEeiWvSwc/edit?usp=sharing > > cheers Steph Perrin > > PS I am hopeless with google documents, hate them, so I wont be offended > if you tell me I set it up all wrong. Hopefully you can make suggestions > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Mar 11 12:54:18 2024 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie E Perrin) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 06:54:18 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on the CCOICI survey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33f909bb-85a3-4544-b4a0-9bdb6bed3098@mail.utoronto.ca> So sorry it didn't open for you, I wonder what I did wrong?? I will check but attached is a word document\ cheers Steph On 2024-03-10 10:24 p.m., ??? Manju Chen wrote: > Hi Spephanie, > > I can't assess the google doc, guess it'd be the same for others too. > Maybe if you could simply circulate the response in word document and > we can suggest edits (if any) in this mailing thread. > > Best, > Manju > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 3:33?AM Stephanie E Perrin > wrote: > > I hope you are all happily home again after a safe and relaxing trip, > luggage in tow.? If not, my sympathies. > > Here is a google doc with my suggested comments on the survey. > Frankly, > while we are not happy with the outcome of the CCOICI, I cannot > see any > point in trying out a different structure.? Maybe we can fix the > one we > have.? Maybe we should have brought in ethics and COI experts to help > the task force.? We cannot consider changing the voting procedure at > Council, we depend on the ability to object ourselves. However, we > need > to not repeat what happened, and we need to get back at fixing the > SOIs. > > Comments welcome, sorry for the delay but I had to go over the > meetings > and the root documents. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KYB7RxmiYymxnyTxJ74ZOwG0EJ-N0GlwRrOEeiWvSwc/edit?usp=sharing > > cheers Steph Perrin > > PS I am hopeless with google documents, hate them, so I wont be > offended > if you tell me I set it up all wrong.? Hopefully you can make > suggestions > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CCOICI Pilot Survey ncsg comments.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 19964 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Mar 11 13:03:30 2024 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie E Perrin) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:03:30 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on the CCOICI survey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <047df8b5-3351-415e-9e51-93a4dfcaf690@mail.utoronto.ca> Profuse apologies folks, did not realize I had restricted access. SHould now be open to anyone with the link, also attached as a word doc just in case.? Copying Caleb and Juan and Ben in case they have comments.? Deadline is tonight I think?? If anyone has any great ideas on how we could have achieved consensus, I am all ears, but I could not think of anything except to keep trying.? I do not recommend giving small teams or task forces the power to deprive Council of voting something down.? And I could not see how we could not have separated out the work that we did reach agreement on, if we had had more notice of what the CPs were planning. cheers Stephanie On 2024-03-10 10:24 p.m., ??? Manju Chen wrote: > Hi Spephanie, > > I can't assess the google doc, guess it'd be the same for others too. > Maybe if you could simply circulate the response in word document and > we can suggest edits (if any) in this mailing thread. > > Best, > Manju > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 3:33?AM Stephanie E Perrin > wrote: > > I hope you are all happily home again after a safe and relaxing trip, > luggage in tow.? If not, my sympathies. > > Here is a google doc with my suggested comments on the survey. > Frankly, > while we are not happy with the outcome of the CCOICI, I cannot > see any > point in trying out a different structure.? Maybe we can fix the > one we > have.? Maybe we should have brought in ethics and COI experts to help > the task force.? We cannot consider changing the voting procedure at > Council, we depend on the ability to object ourselves. However, we > need > to not repeat what happened, and we need to get back at fixing the > SOIs. > > Comments welcome, sorry for the delay but I had to go over the > meetings > and the root documents. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KYB7RxmiYymxnyTxJ74ZOwG0EJ-N0GlwRrOEeiWvSwc/edit?usp=sharing > > cheers Steph Perrin > > PS I am hopeless with google documents, hate them, so I wont be > offended > if you tell me I set it up all wrong.? Hopefully you can make > suggestions > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CCOICI Pilot Survey ncsg comments.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 19964 bytes Desc: not available URL: From manju at nii.org.tw Mon Mar 11 16:15:03 2024 From: manju at nii.org.tw (=?UTF-8?B?6Zmz5pu86Iy5IE1hbmp1IENoZW4=?=) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 22:15:03 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on the CCOICI survey In-Reply-To: <047df8b5-3351-415e-9e51-93a4dfcaf690@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <047df8b5-3351-415e-9e51-93a4dfcaf690@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Thank you, Stephanie, for drafting the response! If no one have raised other opinions until 11 March 23:00UTC, can Julf please submit the response on behalf of NCSG? Thank you so much!! Best, Manju On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 19:03 Stephanie E Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Profuse apologies folks, did not realize I had restricted access. SHould > now be open to anyone with the link, also attached as a word doc just in > case. Copying Caleb and Juan and Ben in case they have comments. Deadline > is tonight I think? If anyone has any great ideas on how we could have > achieved consensus, I am all ears, but I could not think of anything except > to keep trying. I do not recommend giving small teams or task forces the > power to deprive Council of voting something down. And I could not see how > we could not have separated out the work that we did reach agreement on, if > we had had more notice of what the CPs were planning. > > cheers Stephanie > On 2024-03-10 10:24 p.m., ??? Manju Chen wrote: > > Hi Spephanie, > > I can't assess the google doc, guess it'd be the same for others too. > Maybe if you could simply circulate the response in word document and we > can suggest edits (if any) in this mailing thread. > > Best, > Manju > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 3:33?AM Stephanie E Perrin < > stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> wrote: > >> I hope you are all happily home again after a safe and relaxing trip, >> luggage in tow. If not, my sympathies. >> >> Here is a google doc with my suggested comments on the survey. Frankly, >> while we are not happy with the outcome of the CCOICI, I cannot see any >> point in trying out a different structure. Maybe we can fix the one we >> have. Maybe we should have brought in ethics and COI experts to help >> the task force. We cannot consider changing the voting procedure at >> Council, we depend on the ability to object ourselves. However, we need >> to not repeat what happened, and we need to get back at fixing the SOIs. >> >> Comments welcome, sorry for the delay but I had to go over the meetings >> and the root documents. >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KYB7RxmiYymxnyTxJ74ZOwG0EJ-N0GlwRrOEeiWvSwc/edit?usp=sharing >> >> cheers Steph Perrin >> >> PS I am hopeless with google documents, hate them, so I wont be offended >> if you tell me I set it up all wrong. Hopefully you can make suggestions >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emmanuelvitus at gmail.com Tue Mar 12 11:53:40 2024 From: emmanuelvitus at gmail.com (Emmanuel Vitus) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:53:40 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Applicant Support Handbook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, @Manju, for the insights! Just got back to France and dug into the ASP Handbook. Noticed a couple of sticky points for non-commercial groups. @Tomslin Samme-Nlar , please do we have any plans to sync up on our comments? Maybe a quick call after the penholder @Bolutife Adisa gathered our thoughts? The deadline's creeping up, and we've got some important voices to represent :). Below are suggested brainstorming ideas to enhance our submission: - *Financial and non-financial support clarity** (Section 2.1, Pages 6-7): *While the handbook outlines various forms of support, the criteria for eligibility and the process for accessing certain supports (like bid credits or multipliers, and reduced Registry Operator fees) are pending Board consideration and research results. *Possible c**ontentious point**:* This uncertainty could disadvantage non-profit organizations which require clear information to plan their applications. *Comment:* Clearly define all forms of support, ensuring transparent criteria are set early in the process to aid in planning and application preparation. - *Eligibility criteria for non-profits and social impact organizations (Sections 5.5.1, 5.5.4, Pages 19-23):* The detailed criteria for eligible entities are comprehensive; however, the requirement for extensive documentation and the need to demonstrate a direct social impact or public benefit could be burdensome for smaller non-profits or newly established social enterprises. *Possible c**ontentious point**:* The documentation and proof required might be challenging for organizations with limited resources. *Comment:* Introduce flexibility in the documentation requirements and consider alternative evidence of impact and benefit that is easier for smaller entities to provide (Especially those from the Global South). - *Language and Accessibility (General observation across the document):* The handbook is detailed and likely to be available primarily in English, which could pose a barrier to non-English speakers (*bearing in mind that 81% of the world's population does not speak English*). *Possible c**ontentious point**:* The complexity of information and the language barrier may discourage or disadvantage non-English speakers. *Comment: * Provide the handbook and related resources in multiple UN languages and consider translation support for application submissions. Offering webinars or training in various languages could also help bridge the gap. ( *Stephanie made a suggestion during the meeting in PR, we may have to consider that in our submission*) . - *Clarifying questions and communication timelines (Section 7.3, Page 32): *The process for clarifying questions allows for interaction between applicants and the Support Applicant Review Panels. However, the timeline for responses and the potential for additional questions could extend the evaluation period. *Possible c**ontentious point: *Non-commercial stakeholders (applicants) with limited resources may find it challenging to respond promptly, especially if clarifications require additional documentation or specialized input. *Comment:* Establish clear guidelines for the clarifying questions process, including a fixed timeline for responses and a limitation on the number of follow-up questions. Provide examples of common queries to help applicants prepare in advance. - *General business due diligence and background screening (section 5.1, pages 12-13): *The necessity for legal compliance checks and background screenings is vital in upholding the credibility of applicants. Yet, the thoroughness of these procedures may unintentionally exclude organizations from areas where obtaining legal documents is challenging due to intricate regulatory systems. (*Drawing on years of experience in the nonprofit** sector across Africa, I've observed that standard criteria set by international organizations often sideline businesses and organizations in the Global South when verifying documents. It's imperative for ICANN to collaborate with local agencies that can authenticate documentation while respecting the regional context and intricacies. For instance, Google employs TechSoup in Africa to validate documents for non-profit beneficiaries. A similar approach by ICANN, embracing alternative verification methods, would be beneficial*). *Possible c**ontentious point**:* Strict adherence to these criteria without consideration for local contexts might exclude worthy applicants from challenging environments. *Comment:* Introduce a consideration clause for entities facing systemic barriers in obtaining the required legal compliance documentation, allowing for contextual evaluations through local/regional third parties. My 2 cents. Cheers, Emmanuel Le sam. 2 mars 2024 ? 22:17, ??? Manju Chen a ?crit : > Hi all, > > Below are the observations I shared during the Policy Meeting > > Generally I felt the process was indeed improved from the last round. Some > improvements I noticed include: > > - Applicant could still apply for the strings if they are not > qualified for Applicant Support. > - Applicant have to meet the criteria of 'Public Responsibility Due > Diligence'' (different from the Public Interest criteria from the last > round). > - Enhanced diversity in terms of eligibility requirements. (cause, > size of entity, indegeous groups, non-profit...) > - Updated financial stability criteria from the 'financial > capabilities' criteria. > > However, there are also still a lot of blank space in the handbook, mostly > regarding what kind of support a successful applicant can get. > It is still unclear if a successful applicant will be able to access to > these support: > > - An ASP training program (Pending Board consideration of the > community?s supplemental policy recommendation (17.2) > - Access to Application Counselors (Pending Board consideration of the > community?s supplemental policy recommendation(17.2) > - A [50-85%] reduction in New gTLD Program application and evaluation > fees [which fees TBC] > - A [bid credit or multiplier- TBD pending research results] applied > to supported applicants participating in an ICANN Auction. > - Reduced or waived base Registry Operator fees, should the supported > applicant prevailing the gTLD program valuation and proceed to contracting > and delegation. (Pending Board consideration of the community?s > supplemental policy recommendation (17.2) > > > I was actually surprised to see the last one as I remember it didn't make > it to the SubPro final recommendations. I do recall a recent GAC advice > about this though, so probably that's why. > > One thing I found interesting was that they strongly advise the applicant > against revealing the strings they intend to apply when applying for > applicant support. I don't know if this was the same for the last round. I > was not particularly convinced by the reasons given in the Handbook and am > curious of what you guys think. > > Another noticeable change is that the applicant will be evaluated on a > pass/fail basis according to required criteria (public responsibility due > diligence, financial need, and financial stability). This is very different > from the scoring methods from the last round. > > > Some observations, happy to hear what others think (: > > > Best, > Manju > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julf at Julf.com Tue Mar 12 12:02:19 2024 From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:02:19 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on the CCOICI survey In-Reply-To: References: <047df8b5-3351-415e-9e51-93a4dfcaf690@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Submitted last night. Thank you Stephanie and Manju! Julf On 11/03/2024 15:15, ??? Manju Chen wrote: > Thank you, Stephanie, for drafting the response! > > If no one have raised other opinions until 11 March 23:00UTC, can Julf > please submit the response on behalf of NCSG? > > > Thank you so much!! > > > Best, > Manju > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 19:03 Stephanie E Perrin > > wrote: > > __ > > Profuse apologies folks, did not realize I had restricted access. > SHould now be open to anyone with the link, also attached as a word > doc just in case.? Copying Caleb and Juan and Ben in case they have > comments.? Deadline is tonight I think?? If anyone has any great > ideas on how we could have achieved consensus, I am all ears, but I > could not think of anything except to keep trying.? I do not > recommend giving small teams or task forces the power to deprive > Council of voting something down.? And I could not see how we could > not have separated out the work that we did reach agreement on, if > we had had more notice of what the CPs were planning. > > cheers Stephanie > > On 2024-03-10 10:24 p.m., ??? Manju Chen wrote: >> Hi Spephanie, >> >> I can't assess the google doc, guess it'd be the same for others too. >> Maybe if you could simply circulate the response in word document >> and we can suggest edits (if any) in this mailing thread. >> >> Best, >> Manju >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 3:33?AM Stephanie E Perrin >> > > wrote: >> >> I hope you are all happily home again after a safe and >> relaxing trip, >> luggage in tow.? If not, my sympathies. >> >> Here is a google doc with my suggested comments on the survey. >> Frankly, >> while we are not happy with the outcome of the CCOICI, I >> cannot see any >> point in trying out a different structure.? Maybe we can fix >> the one we >> have.? Maybe we should have brought in ethics and COI experts >> to help >> the task force.? We cannot consider changing the voting >> procedure at >> Council, we depend on the ability to object ourselves. >> However, we need >> to not repeat what happened, and we need to get back at fixing >> the SOIs. >> >> Comments welcome, sorry for the delay but I had to go over the >> meetings >> and the root documents. >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KYB7RxmiYymxnyTxJ74ZOwG0EJ-N0GlwRrOEeiWvSwc/edit?usp=sharing >> >> cheers Steph Perrin >> >> PS I am hopeless with google documents, hate them, so I wont >> be offended >> if you tell me I set it up all wrong.? Hopefully you can make >> suggestions >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc From stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca Tue Mar 12 16:34:45 2024 From: stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca (Stephanie E Perrin) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:34:45 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on the CCOICI survey In-Reply-To: References: <047df8b5-3351-415e-9e51-93a4dfcaf690@mail.utoronto.ca>

Message-ID: <14eab11c-79b8-4749-aba0-16ec653fb79c@digitaldiscretion.ca> thanks Julf! Steph On 2024-03-12 6:02 a.m., Johan Helsingius via NCSG-PC wrote: > Submitted last night. Thank you Stephanie and Manju! > > ????Julf > > On 11/03/2024 15:15, ??? Manju Chen wrote: >> Thank you, Stephanie, for drafting the response! >> >> If no one have raised other opinions until 11 March 23:00UTC, can >> Julf please submit the response on behalf of NCSG? >> >> >> Thank you so much!! >> >> >> Best, >> Manju >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 19:03 Stephanie E Perrin >> > > wrote: >> >> ??? __ >> >> ??? Profuse apologies folks, did not realize I had restricted access. >> ??? SHould now be open to anyone with the link, also attached as a word >> ??? doc just in case.? Copying Caleb and Juan and Ben in case they have >> ??? comments.? Deadline is tonight I think?? If anyone has any great >> ??? ideas on how we could have achieved consensus, I am all ears, but I >> ??? could not think of anything except to keep trying.? I do not >> ??? recommend giving small teams or task forces the power to deprive >> ??? Council of voting something down.? And I could not see how we could >> ??? not have separated out the work that we did reach agreement on, if >> ??? we had had more notice of what the CPs were planning. >> >> ??? cheers Stephanie >> >> ??? On 2024-03-10 10:24 p.m., ??? Manju Chen wrote: >>> ??? Hi Spephanie, >>> >>> ??? I can't assess the google doc, guess it'd be the same for others >>> too. >>> ??? Maybe if you could simply circulate the response in word document >>> ??? and we can suggest edits (if any) in this mailing thread. >>> >>> ??? Best, >>> ??? Manju >>> >>> >>> ??? On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 3:33?AM Stephanie E Perrin >>> ??? >> ??? > wrote: >>> >>> ??????? I hope you are all happily home again after a safe and >>> ??????? relaxing trip, >>> ??????? luggage in tow.? If not, my sympathies. >>> >>> ??????? Here is a google doc with my suggested comments on the survey. >>> ??????? Frankly, >>> ??????? while we are not happy with the outcome of the CCOICI, I >>> ??????? cannot see any >>> ??????? point in trying out a different structure.? Maybe we can fix >>> ??????? the one we >>> ??????? have.? Maybe we should have brought in ethics and COI experts >>> ??????? to help >>> ??????? the task force.? We cannot consider changing the voting >>> ??????? procedure at >>> ??????? Council, we depend on the ability to object ourselves. >>> ??????? However, we need >>> ??????? to not repeat what happened, and we need to get back at fixing >>> ??????? the SOIs. >>> >>> ??????? Comments welcome, sorry for the delay but I had to go over the >>> ??????? meetings >>> ??????? and the root documents. >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KYB7RxmiYymxnyTxJ74ZOwG0EJ-N0GlwRrOEeiWvSwc/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> >>> ??????? cheers Steph Perrin >>> >>> ??????? PS I am hopeless with google documents, hate them, so I wont >>> ??????? be offended >>> ??????? if you tell me I set it up all wrong.? Hopefully you can make >>> ??????? suggestions >>> >>> ??????? _______________________________________________ >>> ??????? NCSG-PC mailing list >>> ??????? NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> ??????? https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> ??????? >>> >>> >>> ??? _______________________________________________ >>> ??? NCSG-PC mailing list >>> ??? NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> ??? https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> ??? _______________________________________________ >> ??? NCSG-PC mailing list >> ??? NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> ??? https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> ??? >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Wed Mar 13 05:01:29 2024 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:01:29 +1100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Comments on the CCOICI survey In-Reply-To: References: <047df8b5-3351-415e-9e51-93a4dfcaf690@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Thank you so much Stephanie for the response. Warmly, Tomslin @LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/ On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 01:15, ??? Manju Chen wrote: > Thank you, Stephanie, for drafting the response! > > If no one have raised other opinions until 11 March 23:00UTC, can Julf > please submit the response on behalf of NCSG? > > > Thank you so much!! > > > Best, > Manju > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 19:03 Stephanie E Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> Profuse apologies folks, did not realize I had restricted access. SHould >> now be open to anyone with the link, also attached as a word doc just in >> case. Copying Caleb and Juan and Ben in case they have comments. Deadline >> is tonight I think? If anyone has any great ideas on how we could have >> achieved consensus, I am all ears, but I could not think of anything except >> to keep trying. I do not recommend giving small teams or task forces the >> power to deprive Council of voting something down. And I could not see how >> we could not have separated out the work that we did reach agreement on, if >> we had had more notice of what the CPs were planning. >> >> cheers Stephanie >> On 2024-03-10 10:24 p.m., ??? Manju Chen wrote: >> >> Hi Spephanie, >> >> I can't assess the google doc, guess it'd be the same for others too. >> Maybe if you could simply circulate the response in word document and we >> can suggest edits (if any) in this mailing thread. >> >> Best, >> Manju >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 3:33?AM Stephanie E Perrin < >> stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> wrote: >> >>> I hope you are all happily home again after a safe and relaxing trip, >>> luggage in tow. If not, my sympathies. >>> >>> Here is a google doc with my suggested comments on the survey. Frankly, >>> while we are not happy with the outcome of the CCOICI, I cannot see any >>> point in trying out a different structure. Maybe we can fix the one we >>> have. Maybe we should have brought in ethics and COI experts to help >>> the task force. We cannot consider changing the voting procedure at >>> Council, we depend on the ability to object ourselves. However, we need >>> to not repeat what happened, and we need to get back at fixing the SOIs. >>> >>> Comments welcome, sorry for the delay but I had to go over the meetings >>> and the root documents. >>> >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KYB7RxmiYymxnyTxJ74ZOwG0EJ-N0GlwRrOEeiWvSwc/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> cheers Steph Perrin >>> >>> PS I am hopeless with google documents, hate them, so I wont be offended >>> if you tell me I set it up all wrong. Hopefully you can make suggestions >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Wed Mar 13 23:12:36 2024 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:12:36 +1100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS] Public Comment: Proposed Bylaws Updates to Limit Access to Accountability Mechanisms In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi NCSG, 15th April is not too far away and we still need volunteers for this. I am sure NCSG has significant opinions about this proposed bylaws amendment that it would like to provide to the Board. Warmly, Tomslin On Mon, 4 Mar 2024, 03:47 Tomslin Samme-Nlar, wrote: > > Dear members, > > As you are aware, part of Recommendation #7 from the the CCWG-AP final > report stated that ICANN?s existing accountability mechanisms ? the > Independent Review Process (IRP) or the Reconsideration Process ? could not > be used to challenge decisions made by the Independent Applications > Assessment Panel on individual applications within the Grant Program. > > At ICANN78 (Hamburg), the Board decided that it will direct ICANN org to > use the contractual terms and conditions required to apply for the Grant > Program to obtain applicant agreement that they cannot use ICANN?s > accountability mechanisms to challenge any individual decision taken on > their application within the ICANN Grant Program. Many in the community > were unhappy with this approach the board decided to take and a Request for > Reconsideration (RfR) was even sent by the IPC to the board. > > In this proposal that is open for public comment, the Board is proposing > Bylaws Updates to Limit Access to Accountability Mechanisms whenever the > community asks for such limitations. We are seeking volunteers who can > review this proposal and assess/comment on behalf of NCSG. Let me know if > you'd like to volunteer. > > Deadline to submit the comment is 15 April 2024 but we expect the draft > about 2 weeks before then. You can find more information here: > https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-bylaws-updates-to-limit-access-to-accountability-mechanisms-27-02-2024 > > I have created a draft Google doc for the comment here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fxmm1UyotTz1MDr66qUE0Xlh60b_3e3jZ0Z4UnO-79I/edit?usp=sharing > > Warmly, > Tomslin > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julf at Julf.com Thu Mar 21 16:35:05 2024 From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 15:35:05 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN80 Session Planning Message-ID: <38ad8394-eac5-4acd-afd8-0df97a884285@Julf.com> Hi everyone, I just got off the ICANN80 planning kickoff call. The draft block schedule is attached. ICANN80 will be the Policy Forum, so no public forum session, no board bilaterals - but lots of attention to the high-level government meeting just before. People will be scattered into 5 different hotels, with 10-20 min shuttle rides, and only a pizza place at venue, with other restaurants 15 min walk away... If we have any major objections about the schedule, we need to let staff know ASAP. Julf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 80_Block Schedule- DRAFT - 20Mar2024[1].pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 73016 bytes Desc: not available URL: From manju at nii.org.tw Fri Mar 22 06:34:00 2024 From: manju at nii.org.tw (=?UTF-8?B?6Zmz5pu86Iy5IE1hbmp1IENoZW4=?=) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:34:00 +0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Reminder: Open Items from ICANN 79 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi NCSG, I'd like to bring this to your attention and welcome opinions on NCSG's position. I'm sure you all remember the Board passing the resolution in ICANN78 regarding Auction Proceeds, which is now known as the Grant Program. In its resolution, the Board attempted to contract around the fundamental accountability mechanisms found in the ICANN bylaws despite its approval of the CCWG on Auction Proceeds' recommendations to amend the Bylaw years ago. The resolution faced backlash from the community, after which the Board put forward the proposal of a broadening amendment of the Bylaw. This proposal is currently seeking public comment at https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-bylaws-updates-to-limit-access-to-accountability-mechanisms-27-02-2024 . The GNSO Council discussed in ICANN79 whether to submit a Council response to this public proceeding. It was agreed to first understand each SG/Cs position and see if the positions are unified before deciding whether to submit the Council response. As you can see from below, both RrSG and IPC have shared their positions. *Action Item for NCSG*: Formulate an NCSG position and see if we want to join a GNSO-wide responseby 26 March. Best, Manju ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: DiBiase, Gregory via council Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 5:33?AM Subject: [council] Reminder: Open Items from ICANN 79 To: COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dear Councilors, This is a follow up on the below email. *RE: the public comment on the bylaw amendment:* Leadership has not received feedback on any SG/C position. However, I can share the tentative RrSG position: the RrSG does not support broadening the original scope of the bylaws amendment beyond that contemplated in recommendation 7 of the CCWG AP (i.e. limiting removal of the accountability mechanisms just for the auction grant program). Among other things, the RrSG is concerned that this broadened scope vests undue power in CCWGs to disallow accountability mechanisms going forward by removing the community safeguard afforded by following a formal bylaws amendment. Given that Council would need a unified position to submit a public comment, I invite councilors to indicate whether their SG?s position may align with the RrSG?s position. Please provide feedback by 26 March to leave time to draft a comment. If not, I encourage SG?s to submit their own public comments (Council's role as a member of the Empowered Community is not strictly relevant at this stage -- a response is not strictly necessary now) *RE: ATRT4* Please note any objections to supporting a deferral of ATRT4. If there are none, a short letter will be sent by Council Leadership supporting a deferral at EOD 22 March. Thanks, Greg *From:* DiBiase, Gregory *Sent:* Thursday, March 14, 2024 7:02 AM *To:* COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG *Subject:* Open Items from ICANN 79 Dear Councilors, We are sending this ?open items? email because several items require attention before our next scheduled meeting on April 18. Please see the action items listed below each issue. *CCWG Auction Proceeds; Public Comment on Bylaw Amendment* Deadline: 15 April 2024 Material: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-bylaws-updates-to-limit-access-to-accountability-mechanisms-27-02-2024 Action Item: Designate Councilor to solicit feedback from your SG on whether they support the proposed amendment and help draft public comment from Council. We plan to submit a comment if we can reach a unified a position. *ATRT 4* Deadline: 22 March 2024 Material: (letter from Theresa attached) Summary: Given the number of items still in progress from ATRT3 (pilot holistic review, CCOICI, actual holistic review), ICANN is asking for feedback on whether ARTRT 4 can be deferred. Action Item: Consult with your SGs to determine if there are any objections to supporting a deferral of ATRT4. If there are none, I think a relatively short letter can be sent by Council Leadership supporting a deferral. *Small Team Guidelines* Deadline: 18 April Council Meeting (but deadline can be moved if more discussion is warranted) Material: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j5vDURSuz65R1gZxgxLKsK9H5cI_ux0YixAP9XhSgXg/edit Action Item: Review document and make any comments (please submit feedback in comment form so edits are easier to manage). We plan to submit a motion to adopt at April?s Council meeting. *GAC Liaison Guidelines* Deadline: 18 April Council Meeting (but deadline can be moved if more discussion is warranted) Material: Action Item: Review document and make any comments (please submit feedback in comment form so edits are easier to manage). We plan to submit a motion to adopt at the April?s meeting but recognize more discussion may be needed. *Proposed Amendment to Recommendation 7* Deadline: May 17 (after our April meeting), but we are including here because it is related (in subject matter) to the proposed bylaw amendment referenced above. Material: (letter from Tripti attached) Action Item: Consult with your SGs to determine if there are objections to the proposed revision of recommendation 7. We can discuss at our April meeting and prepare a response before the 17 May deadline. Thanks, Greg _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julf at Julf.com Sat Mar 23 14:40:02 2024 From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:40:02 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Updated ICANN80 Block Schedule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <921f2d86-cae4-456b-ae79-e55cba026a6a@Julf.com> Please find the updated block schedule attached. Pending no objection, it will be circulated as such to the rest of the community for scheduling to kick off. Thank you all! Nathalie, on behalf of the Schedule Team. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 80_Block Schedule- DRAFT22March2024.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 71908 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julf at Julf.com Mon Mar 25 15:26:22 2024 From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:26:22 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] ICANN80 Session Planning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Latest draft schedule for ICANN80, with NCSG/NCUC/NPOC sessions tentatively assigned. Any objections? Julf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN80 GNSO Draft Schedule & Community requests - Draft tab.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 63947 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Mon Mar 25 15:38:06 2024 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:38:06 +1100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] ICANN80 Session Planning In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Looks good to me. Warmly, Tomslin On Tue, 26 Mar 2024, 00:26 Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC, < ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > Latest draft schedule for ICANN80, with NCSG/NCUC/NPOC sessions > tentatively assigned. > > Any objections? > > Julf > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From andrea.glandon at icann.org Mon Mar 25 17:10:01 2024 From: andrea.glandon at icann.org (Andrea Glandon) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:10:01 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Ext] Re: [NCSG-EC] ICANN80 Session Planning In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <12717A84-00F3-4534-86C7-E87206BA4579@icann.org> I can put it against the TPR on Tuesday. And then of course, Wednesday is the GNSO Council session. Kind Regards, Andrea From: NCSG-EC on behalf of farzaneh badii via NCSG-EC Reply-To: farzaneh badii Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 at 10:06 To: Tomslin Samme-Nlar Cc: ncsg-pc , NCSG EC Subject: [Ext] Re: [NCSG-EC] ICANN80 Session Planning Are you sure you want an NCSG PC meeting at the same time as RDRS SC? Stephanie will miss out on it and while it is not that consequential it can be a hotbed of bad ideas that must be put out! Farzaneh On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 9:38?AM Tomslin Samme-Nlar via NCSG-EC > wrote: Looks good to me. Warmly, Tomslin On Tue, 26 Mar 2024, 00:26 Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC, > wrote: Latest draft schedule for ICANN80, with NCSG/NCUC/NPOC sessions tentatively assigned. Any objections? Julf _______________________________________________ NCSG-EC mailing list NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec [lists.ncsg.is] _______________________________________________ NCSG-EC mailing list NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec [lists.ncsg.is] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mesumbeslin at gmail.com Mon Mar 25 22:42:18 2024 From: mesumbeslin at gmail.com (Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:42:18 +1100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] ICANN80 Session Planning In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hhmm...True. Tough one. RDRS is more problematic than TPR so maybe we go with Andrea's suggestion. On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 at 02:06, farzaneh badii wrote: > Are you sure you want an NCSG PC meeting at the same time as RDRS SC? > Stephanie will miss out on it and while it is not that consequential it can > be a hotbed of bad ideas that must be put out! > > Farzaneh > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 9:38?AM Tomslin Samme-Nlar via NCSG-EC < > ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > >> Looks good to me. >> >> Warmly, >> Tomslin >> >> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024, 00:26 Johan Helsingius via NCSG-EC, < >> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >> >>> Latest draft schedule for ICANN80, with NCSG/NCUC/NPOC sessions >>> tentatively assigned. >>> >>> Any objections? >>> >>> Julf >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: