Hi Adam

On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> My feeling is it's not appropriate for NCUC/NCSG to endorse statements it has not had the opportunity to review, comment on, etc.  

Fair point as stated…so looking at the document, do you see anything that is perhaps overly reflective of commercial actors’ particularistic interests, insufficiently attentive to noncommercials’ interests, or otherwise of concern?  If so, we could take it up with Keith and others and ask for tweaks before signing on.  If not, wouldn’t it make sense to sign on?
> 
> Is the SO/AC list archive now open?  Could we have the address.

I asked again on the last call, Olivier of ALAC supported, nobody else commented, so it’s not clear if staff think they have a mandate.

As noted previously, the transcripts and recordings of the monthly SO/AC/SG chair meetings are available (Confluence account needed) at
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=soaceinputfdback&title=Event+Calendar.  They are supposed to be coordination and info sharing discussions, not an off-the-books decision making channel, but if there are concerns about this then let’s suggest a process, or at least define one for our side.  The below exchange from the last call may be of interest in this context.

Cheers

Bill

-------

Bill Drake:       

No worries, David. Just briefly, Fadi, I'm sure we all appreciate the intention of what you’ve just said, and the spirit of it, it's very much welcome, I think it is definitely the case that more often dialogue and opportunities to communicate frankly with each other, about possible misperceptions and the accumulated understandings would be really, really constructive. And this mechanism that you are suggesting sounds like it could be useful.
 
But one thing I want to point out, this is just perhaps, maybe, particularly an issue for me coming from the noncommercial side of things. There are some concern, I think, amongst some people in the community about the whole process of having this kind of shares-based [chairs-based] way of interacting, and we haven’t even figured out, I think, ourselves how -- what the rules of the game are in some respects, with regard to how do other people in the community participate? What is the understanding as to what we can decide or tell you, and so on, what kind of internal coordination does each group do within its group of -- with each Chair, with each group before we have these discussions, and so on.
 
It's getting a little bit complicated, so I think we have to,  maybe, sort out a little bit how we approach this, if we are going to continue with this mechanism. And I would say that if you are going to do these roundtables, which is, as I say, a constructive idea, we might want to consider, perhaps, including other people sometime, as well, not just Chairs, because if people -- we have a little bit of an issue already, with the fact that the SO/AC their own list is now publicly archived; a lot of people were asking me what's going on in this group. It's not transparent, what is this whole new channel that's been created for decision-making, how does that fit with bottom-up spirit? So, I hope we sort that out, and I hope we can maybe involve other more directly in the process too. Thanks.
 
Fadi Chehadé:                 

That's fair, Bill, and I look to your guidance. Just give me guidance, tell me what would work. I mean, clearly we can, obviously share with people that there are no decisions being made in these meetings, and maybe before you come to these roundtables, given that they've elected you to certain roles. Maybe you could seek input from them. Say, what is it you want us to tell Fadi and his staff to improve, so this becomes -- and then we will have a running list of things, and we can leave these things completely transparent, and transcribed. Whatever will height -- certainly we could have roundtables with, say, I don't know, 100 people, but I just think the dynamic will be different.
 
Ability to be brutally frank and say, look, Fadi, this is a mess, and you need to work on it. I just need you to be comfortable doing this. So guide me, I'm very open, and I just to find a way, frankly, to avoid finding ourselves with the gulf that happened culminating in Istanbul, which is, if we had not all stepped back away from that abyss, frankly we would have been in a not very good place, certainly (inaudible) all of us. And I thank each one of you for the wisdom that you have displayed and you’ve come to me with. And look, we are just not in a good place. We are not hearing each other.
 
We don't need to get to that point again on many issues ahead of us, so I'm trying to find a mechanism to ensure we perform without these gulfs happening. And any suggestion, I'm open, and I'm committed.
> 
> 
> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> 
>> +1 to Norbert's view.
>> 
>> Cheers!
>> 
>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> 
>> On 26 Sep 2014 04:03, "Norbert Klein" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> If NCSG is the only one not yet signed, and as it seems in line with our concern, I suggest that we do not try to make changes, but join all the others with the present text.
>> 
>> Norbert Klein
>> Cambodia
>> 
>> =
>> 
>> On 9/26/2014 9:58 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Actually, the stmt is being signed by the Registry Stakeholder Group, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, the Business Constituency, the IP Constituency, and the ISP Constituency.  So NCSG is the only other part of the GNSO.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Robin
>> 
>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Adam wrote:
>> 
>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for passing this along, Rafik.  I think this draft cross community submission is great and addresses many of the concerns we had previously raised with ICANN's current accountability plan.  It also proposes a few concrete suggestions for improving this process.  I hope NCSG will endorse this cross community statement.
>> 
>> Robin,
>> 
>> the statement's from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) not cross constituency.
>> 
>> Adam
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Is there support from others as well?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments
>> Date: September 25, 2014 7:09:46 AM PDT
>> To: NCSG-Policy <[log in to unmask]>
>> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> you find attached the comment from registries SG for the accountability public comment and they are proposing several recommendations
>> Keith their representative is asking if we would like to develop a joint SO/AC/SG statement.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> <ICANN RySG Accountability Response v10 23 2014 Clean.docx>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
[log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************