Thanks for this Avri!  i am already behind in my commitments, so I am not volunteering to write something until I catch up on my homework (let me say I DO not understand how you folks keep up with the reading and review.)  Anyway, I spent some bandwidth last week bantering with the privacy proxy working group , and i think a paper that lays out why ICANN has no authority to regulate matters of content would be a great paper to submit.  I am tired of pointing out they cannot do something, and they just go ahead and ask questions about how to do it.  And I have only been at this 11 months now.  I would love to hear your coping strategies (other than those concoctions Robin relies on , what are they called, Fentimans?)
As I have mentioned to Kathy, Lee Bygrave is writing a book on regulating through contract, he has also written on privacy rights of groups.  I am discovering a lot of stuff I should have read a few months ago, such as an excellent article by Wolfgang that would have explained a lot when I needed it at the EWG....maybe we should have an annotated reading list for newbies like me?  
Let me be clear about another point/topic on the EWG report....Kathy has pointed out that there is no expertise on rights of free expression on the EWG.  I don't claim to be an expert but it is not something I know nothing about.  (apologies to non-english speakers for the double negative) It is not that I did not argue for recognizing free speech, constitutional rights etc.....it is that I got nowhere.  NADA.  I am not sure that even if we had had a Charter or INternational Constitutional law expert there they would have done better, there is no appetite (that I could detect) to look at how a domain name facilitates or enables expression.  I also argued passionately for the entire reconfiguration of the network as a platform for public discourse and the exercise of democratic rights (govts use it exclusively now for citizen services and participation, it has to fulfill democratic expectations in a quasi constitutional way, or governments are in violation of their fiduciary and constitutionally guaranteed responsibilities to their citizens.  NOt a lot of uptick on that argument either).  IMHO noone wants to tease apart that mess, because (in my view) the whole exercise of IP rights falls into question when they do.  So do cybercrime enforcement techniques currently in use, again IMHO (insert caveat:  I am not a lawyer). 
I am busy reading all kinds of stuff for my PhD work, it might be useful sometime to actually have a chat about how this stuff has been framed, and how to push it into a place where we can re-frame it.  Now seems like a good time, given Brazil....(nothin else to do, right?) :-)
Cheers Stephanie
PS the person on the EWG with the most breadth in expertise is Michael Niebel.  He does not enter into too much debate about free expression, I suspect because at the Commission, their authority in such matters (last time I checked, which was admittedly a while ago) is less clear than on other matters,  once you get beyond the EU Charter of rights (which is not enforced by the Commission, except in some areas such as data protection elements that find their way into Hustinx' bailliwick.  I would have to check on immigration and refugee rights, again, it is complicated in Europe).  It seems to me pretty complicated across the board, I would love help understanding it from any experts we have on the group.  Once you get past MIchael, I would agree, not too many of the folks there at the EWG have done a lot of/any work on free expression rights, and these are constituted differently around the world.  I don't think US constitutional rights are resonating with too many folks these days, post Snowden, so I would caution against coming forward with a US style proclamation.  
Do we have any Poles on this list? they have an interesting constitution....
PPS Chris Disspain knows a lot, but he is very rigorous about keeping the EWG within its mandate.  I would bet that this area might be considered outside the mandate.  You know the players and the background better than I do Kathy, what was the rationale you heard about not having such expertise around the table?
On 2014-01-21, at 1:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Thank you Kathy.
> 
> We need more writers like you submitting position papers for the NCSG and its constituencies to consider.
> 
> Sometimes we succeed in getting teams to write something for the NCSG Discuss list and the Policy Committee to consider, and a few people are trying to figure out how better to enable such efforts. In the meantime, the way we mostly get statements is for some inspired NCSG member to write one and the rest of us to discuss and to wordsmith.
> 
> So anytime any of you gets the urge to write either about a WG they are participating in when they have a comments call or any of the open community calls - they should write something and submit to the discuss list. Then either me or whoever is next elected to lead the Policy Committee next, will make sure they put into a process to get it submitted.  And of course you can always submit your own comments as an individual or organization.
> 
> Note, the earlier something is submitted the better chance it has of being processed properly.
> 
> There are always open comment periods.
> They can alwasy be found at: www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> PS. Since there are new members, and I have done very little lately to welcome new members and invite them into policy process:  an info-note I wrote last year on how to get involved can be found at:
> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Guide+to+getting+started+in+NCSG
> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Getting+Involved+in+Working+Groups
> 
> Like most things on our wiki they need updating, but i just re-read them and they seem passable.  (-: Can't be much better that that since no one has ever liked them)
> 
> 
> Apologies for sending this note under the other topic Study ....  I am never sure that many people read the email with an administrivia subject lines.  If you got far enough to read that line, you are someone who might have read it anyway.
> 
> cheers.
> 
> On 21-Jan-14 12:29, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>> Great and thank you, All!
>> Kathy
>> 
>> :
>>> The NCSG Policy Committee has reviewed the statements made by the NCUC
>>> and by ALAC.
>>> 
>>> NCSG endorses the NCUC statement which in turn endorses the ALAC
>>> Statement.  Specifically:
>>> 
>>> NCUC Statement:
>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-whois-misuse-27nov13/msg00012.html
>>> 
>>> ALAC Statement:
>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-whois-misuse-27nov13/msg00004.html
>>> 
>>> Thank you and apologies for the tardiness.
>>> 
>>> Avri Doria
>>> Alternate Chair, NCSG Policy Committee
>> 
>>