Dear Konstantinos,

I find it more logical that Robin sends the liaison 6c messages to NCSG-discuss list as she is the Chair of NCSG.

Please consider the request to NCUC to develop its own list as a permanent request from the current NPOC-EC; that  said we do not expect it to be met, despite the spirit and the letter of our San José joint statement of collaboration. So it will not be raised by me again after the remark below. 

To illustrate the need for an NCUC list to deal with NCUC business only, I note that to adapt your NCUC charter to the new NCSG charter, you had to go the NCSG list and write in the subject "for NCUC only" or something to that effect. This also led to confusion with our new Somalia NPOC colleague and unnecessary trafic on NPOC-voice, for which I received criticism by some our members in private emails.

Alain 

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear Alain,

 

there are a couple of things I hope you will help me understand here: what is the problem of sending informative messages which are meant to update NCSG members (that’s what the liaison 6 messages are – merely ICANN updates and information) and how this is me not allowing NPOC to grow organically. What I am trying to say here is that I would hope that if I skipped a message coming from liaison 6, that you or Robin would be able to fill in and send this to the list. That is why it is important to have one single policy list – so that we as Chairs help each other disseminate the various updates. Also, I had a quick look at your mailing list and I don’t see any discussions on this very issue or anyone objecting to this. I would actually be surprised if anyone did object or have any issues, since these messages are meant to provide information, which I think your members can either have a look at or decide to disregard. And, having said that, I didn’t see you forwarding any of these messages to the NPOC list either. So, there is not even a case of duplicative messages being circulated to the list.

 

For the separate list, this issue has been discussed to the mailing list and my understanding has been that the NCSG membership decided against as this would not allow a room for the exchange of ideas and dialogue.

 

I would suggest that all liaison 6 messages then are circulated by Robin if this will help your members, although I still don’t understand what is the big problem in me communicating updates to our members.

 

Cheers

 

Konstantinos

 

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

 

Senior Lecturer,

Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses

Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law

University of Strathclyde,

The Law School,

Graham Hills building,

50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA

UK

tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306

http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765

Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038

Website: www.komaitis.org

 

From: Alain Berranger [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Δευτέρα, 2 Απριλίου 2012 7:41 μμ
To: Konstantinos Komaitis
Cc: Robin Gross
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] FW: .com Registry Agreement Renewal - Public comment period open to 26 April 2012

 

Konstantinos,

 

We did agree in SJ that NCUC and NPOC were to collaborate - that is a two way street as you perfectly know. This issue of NCUC not having its own email list is an irritant for NPOC (NPOC is not as established as NCUC and we have managed to produce a list). You, as Chair of NCUC, can disseminate to NCUC and I, as Chair of NPOC, will disseminate to NPOC membership.

 

Please, for the last time, I am again requesting that, as Chair of NCUC, that you redirect liaison 6c messages only to NCUC list - please create it if it does not exist (I'm sure you can find a student to do this, no?). You must adjust to a situation now where NCSG is more than just NCUC.

 

Pleas show some empathy. It is very important for NPOC to have and manage its own channels of communications. We have mostly new and rookie NPOC members, most new to ICANN and bewildered by its complexity, who understandably hesitate to engage on NCSG-DISCUSS. We need our room to grow and establish our own style at at our own pace. We will decide when to join the NCSG-DISCUSS discussions. It will happen but now you put us in a catch 22 situation. Some of the liaison 6c are opportunities for NPOC to explain certain ICANN matters which are old stuff to your NCUC group.

 

Why am I not getting understanding and cooperation from you on this?

 

Robin, I share with you as you represent both Cys and you may have a different view on this?

 

Is my request not reasonable? Is NPOC not able to act independantly of NCUC? What are NCUC's concerns? can we find a compromise?

 

Alain

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

FYI

 

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

 

Senior Lecturer,

Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses

Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law

University of Strathclyde,

The Law School,

Graham Hills building,

50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA

UK

tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306

http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765

Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038

Website: www.komaitis.org

 

From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Τετάρτη, 28 Μαρτίου 2012 5:17 μμ
To: liaison6c
Subject: [liaison6c] .com Registry Agreement Renewal - Public comment period open to 26 April 2012

 

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27mar12-en.htm
.com Registry Agreement Renewal


Executive Summary

ICANN is posting today for public comment Verisign's proposed agreement for renewal of the 2006 .com Registry Agreement between ICANN and Verisign. This proposal is a result of discussions between ICANN and VeriSign, and will be considered by the ICANN Board after public comment. The current agreement will expire on 30 November 2012. Public comment may be submitted through April 26, 2012 and viewed at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/com-renewal-27mar12-en.htm

This summary describes important aspects of the registry agreement renewal process, the content of the proposed agreement renewal, and certain background to the proposed agreement. This summary is accompanied by the "red line" version of the agreement and several documents that describe and summarize the proposal. Upcoming agreements due to be renewed in 2012 such as .biz, .info, .name and .org will follow a similar process.

 

Glen de Saint Géry

GNSO Secretariat

[log in to unmask]

http://gnso.icann.org

 



 

--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA

Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca

Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca

Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org

NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger

 




--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger