/William Drake wrote:/
On 3) ..."It also ties directly to a debate that both Fadi and some 
board members have been starting in various contexts, particularly the 
SO-AC-SG chairs space, about “trust” and the weaknesses thereof revealed 
in the accountability process.  Having a frank and open discussion of 
this would be useful"

I think in this case it would also be good to "to specify exactly which 
outcomes on non-outcomes to date we have a concern about, otherwise we 
could get sort of generic answers back about how of course they are 
following the process blah blah blah" (as On 2) below.

Maybe stating here a reference to the response by Fadi Chehade and 
Stephen Crocker (in response to the stakeholder leader's letter 
/"Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance"/ to Fadi Chehade and 
the Board) if a substantial number of NCSG colleagues also feel that 
their response was not an appropriate answer to the serious questions 
raised. That is what I feel - it has not raised my "trust". And NOT 
raising this frankly and specifically may result in loosing a unique 
opportunity for an open discussion with the board.

Norbert Klein
Cambodia


On 9/23/2014 1:26 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Sep 22, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> as usual we will have 1 hour meeting with the board and they need 
>> topics we want to discuss in advance.
>> can you please share what you think we should discuss with them. 
>> Please write a brief introduction of the topic you want to suggest.
>>
>> as starter I think we  have those proposed by Avri :
>>
>>  1. Human Rights considerations at ICANN
>>  2. Discussion on outcomes to date from the ATRT2 report
>>  3. What does multistakeholder bottom-up process mean at ICANN  (this
>>     may be related to one there on essence of ICANN.)
>>
>
> Works for me.
>
> On 1) there will be further discussion of the COE paper and HR issues 
> at NCUC’s Constituency Day meeting and there’s talk of trying to also 
> organize a cross-community meeting of some sort Wednesday, but I’m not 
> sure whether the latter will pan out in the time available.  It’d be 
> useful to engage the board in the discussion.
>
> On 2) it might be good to specify exactly which outcomes on 
> non-outcomes to date we have a concern about, otherwise we could get 
> sort of generic answers back about how of course they are following 
> the process blah blah blah.
>
> On 3) I think this is important because there’ve been comments from 
> ICANN leadership about what does bottom up really mean, how important 
> is it, isn’t it just a drag on the quick decision making needed, it’s 
> not in the bylaws, etc., which is a bit worrying. * It also ties 
> directly to a debate that both Fadi and some board members have been 
> starting in various contexts, particularly the SO-AC-SG chairs space, 
> about “trust” and the weaknesses thereof revealed in the 
> accountability process*.  Having a frank and open discussion of this 
> would be useful, it’s on a lot of minds and I imagine the board will 
> have parallel sorts of discussions with other groupings that day.
>
> In terms of priority and time allocation I’d argue for 3 1 2 but 
> others may have different preferences.  Hopefully we don’t compress 3) 
> too much or we’ll get stock answers rather than probing dialogue.
>
> Bill
>
>
>