LISTSERV - NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

Is the underlyling original letter from the CSG available. I am struggling to think what their concerns might be about a discussion with the Data Protection Commissioners or a discussion about content regulation – or is it just that they don’t want to talk about them??

Paul Rosenzweig

[log in to unmask]

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

www.redbranchconsulting.com

My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2017 6:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fw: Re: ICANN Copenhagen, questions from and to the Board

Not a question for the Board, but I am wondering if we should ask or write to Göran about this letter which he sent the Commercial Stakeholder Group last week. At a minimum, I think we should make it clear that we would like to be involved in “establish[ing this] criteria”.

"We acknowledge the concerns you expressed regarding the HIT session on DNS and Content Regulation in Hyderabad, and we will be working with SO/AC Leadership to establish criteria for inclusion of Cross-Community Topics (HITs) on future meeting schedules.
We also note your concern about the session, Cross-Community Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners, to be held in Copenhagen. This session was added as a Cross-Community Topic (HIT) after receiving broad support from SO/AC Leadership, most notably, the GAC, GNSO, and ALAC."

Ayden Férdeline

linkedin.com/in/ferdeline

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: ICANN Copenhagen, questions from and to the Board
Local Time: 2 March 2017 5:09 PM
UTC Time: 2 March 2017 17:09
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]

Hi Kathy,

Yes, that's right. I think we should come up with about three questions,
there won't be time for more.

Tapani

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:55:52AM -0500, Kathy Kleiman ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

> Tapani,
>
> These are questions for the Board/NCSG Meeting, right? I think we should
> be asking questions about Compliance -- and continue our efforts to seek
> fairer compliance actions for registrants, compliance actions that fall
> within the scope of ICANN, and compliance actions responsive to the needs of
> the whole community (not a subset).
>
> This is definitely not the right phrasing yet, but we can certain provide
> it. I know Ayden and Raoul have been thinking about compliance. Would anyone
> else like to help craft a question for the board? (Please respond
> privately.)
>
> Best, Kathy
>
> On 3/2/2017 8:05 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > As time is running short, I'll take the liberty of hijacking
> > Farzaneh's message from NCUC list - thank you.
> >
> > So, questions below for all NCSG members. The deadline is rather
> > impossible, but I don't expect sky to fall if we extend it by
> > the weekend. Nonetheless quick comments would be appreciated.
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:57:57AM -0500, farzaneh badii ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> >
> > > NCUC members,
> > >
> > > Board has requested to answer the below questions for its meeting with the
> > > stakeholder groups ( I think NCSG):
> > >
> > > 1. To what degree is your membership actively participating in
> > > CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2? What could the Board or ICANN
> > > organization do to facilitate participation and timely completion of this
> > > work?
> > > 2. What policy/advice issues are top priorities for your group?
> > >
> > >
> > > They also want to know what we want to ask them during NCSG/Board meeting.
> > >
> > > This meeting will take place at the NCSG level but I took the liberty to
> > > ask you and trigger the discussion. If discussions take place on NCSG about
> > > these questions and our questions to the Board, then we shall transfer our
> > > input to that thread.
> > >
> > > Board has generously given us a deadline of 3 March for submitting our
> > > questions!
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > >
> > > Farzaneh