Agreed! We've been doing some work in the CCWP HR Sub Group on
Workstream Two as well, happy to also bring that into a discussion.
Looking forward to discuss!
Perhaps a webinar / discussion on the 1st, 2nd or 7th of June?
Best,
Niels
On 05/27/2016 10:00 AM, hfaiedh ines wrote:
> Great suggestion Avri. Let's start the discussion.
>
> 2016-05-27 9:22 GMT+02:00 Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
> Good suggestion, Avri.
> Let's get some strategy on Work Stream 2
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of
> > avri doria
> > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:29 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: how do we move forward was Re: [] great opening ...
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Should we be able to work on stuff on list and in other
> environments online in
> > the meantime?
> >
> > I think it would be good to talk about WS2 in NCSG before the one day
> > meeting in Helsinki some of us are hoping to get to by hook or by
> crook (or
> > will be there in remote in any case). Maybe a good time for our
> PC to plan a
> > webinar/discussion? Or maybe even a NCSG involvement campaign.
> >
> > avri
> >
> > On 26-May-16 16:56, Matthew Shears wrote:
> > >
> > > + 1 James
> > >
> > > But I think this raises an interesting question that's going to
> become
> > > more pressing post transition - which is how fast and how well
> > > NCSG/NCUC/NPOC can get up to speed in terms of not only their/our
> > > respective responsibilities with regard being part of the EC,
> but also
> > > in terms of what our views should be on WS2 - which at the
> moment is a
> > > hodge podge of issue areas that everyone is reading into. While
> > > Helsinki is seemingly impossible to find time at for this type of
> > > important discussion - which shows how unhelpful this new
> structure is
> > > - perhaps we can find time to do a deep dive into these two
> matters in
> > > Hyderabad.
> > >
> > > Matthew
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/26/2016 8:12 PM, James Gannon wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman
> > >> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
> > >> Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > >> <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
> > >> Date: Thursday 26 May 2016 at 19:15
> > >> To: "[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <NCSG-
> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
> > >> Subject: Re: great opening statement by Brett
> > >>
> > >> All,
> > >>
> > >> I think the nuances of the concerns are being missed. There is
> > >> something much, much more than the mere transition of the US
> > >> Government out of its current role. As Avri pointed out earlier
> > >> today: "This was linked to improvements in ICANN
> > >> accountability. We fought for that and got it. Upfront we
> agreed
> > >> to this process be divided into two parts."
> > >>
> > >> I think everyone agrees with the transition -- Bret certainly
> > >> said he did at the hearing. But it is those improvements of
> ICANN
> > >> Accountability that people are questioning. Are they fair? Are
> > >> they balanced? Are they understood by all who will be
> impacted by
> > >> them
> > >>
> > >> JG: This was a process of two years produced in an open and
> inclusive
> > >> manner for everyone who wanted to be at the table, everyone had
> their
> > >> chance for input, for assessment for including the views of their
> > >> stakeholders, I contend that yes everyone who is impacted by these
> > >> changes has been engaged with.
> > >>
> > >> I have to tell you I am concerned because there seem to be
> a lot
> > >> of "gotchas" -- meaning every time I hear someone testify about
> > >> the details of the Accountability & Transition plan,
> someone else
> > >> (involved with the process) says that he/she/it did not
> > >> understand it that way. There was certainly a lot of last
> minute
> > >> changes and maneuvering. There is not, frankly, a lot of
> > >> knowledge or understanding about the details of how this
> > >> restructuring and reorganization is going to work.
> > >>
> > >> JG: I disagree with this, we have a comprehensive plan, with a
> large
> > >> amount of detail, to a level that shows the details needed to
> > >> understand. If people do not wish to read the proposal and gain
> > >> understanding then I don’t feel that they have the ability to
> sit at
> > >> the sidelines and criticise. Informed criticism and feedback is
> > >> welcome, posturing is not.
> > >>
> > >> Rather than name-calling, or picture discussion, let's talk
> about
> > >> the details (the devil's always there, right). Can a consensus
> > >> policy really be appealed to an Independent Review Process
> > >> proceeding by one of the multiple stakeholders involved? Isn't
> > >> that going to give those stakeholders with the most time and
> > >> resources a third, fourth and fifth bite at the policies we are
> >
> > >> negotiating? Isn't that going to undermine our months and years
> > >> of work in the policy development process and working groups?
> > >> That's one question that no one has been able to answer for me.
> > >>
> > >> JG: Please I encourage everyone to read the proposal, so much
> > >> misinformation and fear uncertainty and doubt is being spread by
> > >> certain actors at the moment I really suggest people with
> concerns go
> > >> back to the source and stop listening to others who are trying to
> > >> further an agenda. PDP carveout are in the proposal for exactly
> that
> > >> reason.
> > >>
> > >> *Annex 2:*
> > >> Power: 3. Reject changes to Standard Bylaws Threshold to
> convene: Two
> > >> SOs/ACs, including the SO that led the PDP that requires the Bylaw
> > >> change (if any) Threshold to reject: Three support rejection,
> > >> including the SO that led the PDP that requires the Bylaw
> change (if
> > >> any), and no more than one objection
> > >>
> > >> *Annex 7:*
> > >> Challenges the result(s) of a Supporting Organization’s policy
> > >> development process (PDP) Notwithstanding the foregoing and
> > >> notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a
> community IRP,
> > >> no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of an SO’s policy
> > >> development process (PDP) may be launched without the support
> of the
> > >> SO that approved the policy recommendations from the PDP or, in the
> > >> case of the result(s) of a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG)
> > >> chartered by more than one SO, without the support of the SOs that
> > >> approved the policy recommendations from that CCWG.
> > >>
> > >> Let's talk details - if you help us understand, we'll
> appreciate
> > >> it. But this is much more than a transition from USG
> oversight...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Kathy
> > >>
> > >> On 5/26/2016 12:26 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> *From:*David Post [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
> > >>>
> > >>> But that's not the goal, in my eyes. The goal is to create an
> > >>> institution that can manage these resources in a reasonable
> way, for
> > >>> the next [many] years.
> > >>>
> > >>> MM: As Avri noted, the goal of the stewardship transition was
> > >>> to…transition, i.e. get the US govt out of its current role. I am
> > >>> flabbergasted by the fact that you do not see the US oversight
> role
> > >>> as a broken part of the institution.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> MM: As someone who has written about early post-revolutionary
> > >>> America, I wonder how you would respond to my argument “all these
> > >>> new democratic government models are new and untested. We don’t
> > >>> really know how well they will work. Why doesn’t the United States
> > >>> retain its status as a British colony under the King for a few
> > >>> years, and let him decide if the experiment has worked?”
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> All I'm suggesting is that it would hardly seem unreasonable,
> to me,
> > >>> if the USG took the position that while it is signing off on the
> > >>> transition, it is doing so subject to a kind of probationary
> period
> > >>> that will enable us all to understand better whether and how it
> > >>> actually works. Perhaps other countries will view that as a
> terribly
> > >>> untrustworthy move, perhaps they won't - I do think it helps
> that it
> > >>> is, fundamentally, quite a reasonable position to take.
> > >>>
> > >>> MM: So you assume that the USG is NOT part of the machine, it is a
> > >>> deus ex machina that we can invoke at any time to insert an
> entirely
> > >>> rational, undistorted corrective action on whatever happens?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights
> > > Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org <http://cdt.org>
> > > E: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> | T:
> +44.771.247.2987 <tel:%2B44.771.247.2987>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital
Article 19
www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
|
