Dear Ed,
I sympathize, but this is not the first time this question has been
brought up. And since the voting has started, I hope you can treat this
as a matter of priority.
Best,
Niels
On 08/21/2016 07:46 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi James and Paul
>
> Thanks for your messages and for your enthusiasm!
>
> I need to apologize – this is the busiest time of the year for me
> workwise. Our academics here, students and professors, often disappear
> from the lists for a few weeks around exam time. It’s crunch time for
> them. The last few weeks in August is the equivalent in the music
> industry in the UK and US. My jobs usually have great flexibility,
> that’s why I’m one of the few non academics able to volunteer here:
> except at this time of year. I just got through with a three day
> festival in the rain and mud, living in tents in the South of England,
> will be doing the same for four days at the Leeds and Reading Festivals
> next weekend (hopefully without the rain!) and am working clubs every
> night this week. I also have six ICANN calls in the next four days that
> I've factored into my schedule..
>
> The answers are coming and I can only apologize for the delay. I hope to
> have the first set up Monday and then will do the best I can. Apologies
> to everyone. We’re all volunteers here, most of us are not paid for this
> work (I certainly am not!), so I hope folks can relate.
>
> Thanks for your understanding – and post midnight greetings from a rest
> area off a highway somewhere in the South of England,
>
> Best,
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Paul Rosenzweig" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent*: Sunday, August 21, 2016 5:40 PM
> *To*: [log in to unmask]
> *Subject*: Re: Views on Adding Human Rights to the Bylaws
>
>
> James
>
>
>
> It is the weekend. Some people have lives outside of this list. I
> suspect that we will hear from the other candidates in due course.
>
>
>
> P
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>
> My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
>
>
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of
> *James Gannon
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 21, 2016 7:14 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Views on Adding Human Rights to the Bylaws
>
>
>
> Just following up on this, we have a number of candidates being asked
> questions on various topics by a few NCSG members, but I have only seen
> Stephanie responding, this to me is quite disappointing and doesn’t
> reflect well.
>
>
>
> I would appreciate those asking for our votes to respond.
>
>
>
> -James
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Tatiana Tropina
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> *Reply-To: *Tatiana Tropina <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> *Date: *Saturday 20 August 2016 at 09:35
> *To: *"[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> *Subject: *Re: Views on Adding Human Rights to the Bylaws
>
>
>
> HI Bill, hi all,
>
> Thanks for making three different threads - very much appreciated that
> these important questions will not get lost.
>
> I think Niels's questions are broader than just addition of the human
> rights obligation into the bylaws. I am puzzled, too and would really
> like to get answers.
>
> Warm regards
>
> Tatiana
>
>
>
> On 20 August 2016 at 09:55, William Drake <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> (was: A Few Take-Aways from Meet the Candidates Call re: Council
> Transparency and Coordination)
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> How about we discuss the human rights issue issue under this subject
> line?
>
>
>
> I have to admit I that I too was puzzled by what happened in
> Marrakech on this, both in real time and after reading the
> transcript. It would be good to understand everyones’ views on this
> crucial issue.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2016, at 20:52, Niels ten Oever
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I think Bill and Milton raised very important questions
> concerning the
> work of the GNSO. I would like to ask two more questions based
> on what
> Milton has already asked.
>
> I read in Ed’s statement about his strong commitment to freedom of
> expression. I would like to ask again – after asking this in
> person, in
> a session and in the +1 thread here, because I believe it is
> important
> for us to know: Why did Ed vote, as the only GNSO councilor,
> against the
> addition of a commitment for ICANN to respect human rights to
> ICANN bylaws?
> This is not just about NCSG GNSO councilors, but Ed was only one
> of ALL
> GNSO councilors to vote against the commitment to human rights.
>
> And furthermore, why did Ed not discuss this openly, before the
> vote, on
> the NCSG list. Because I think the concerns Ed had were not shared
> widely within the NCSG, except for Heritage and himself.
>
> I find it a problem of accountability how Ed continuously seem
> to not
> want to discuss this openly within our constituency, but does
> vote on
> behalf of it. Here I would like to quote the charter again:
>
> "Each NCSG GNSO Council Representative shall represent, within
> the GNSO
> Council, ICANN and its activities, the goals and priorities of
> the NCSG
> to the best of his/her ability and in accordance with the
> principle of
> consensus building."
>
> and:
>
> "Council Representatives will, however, be expected to
> understand the
> varied positions in the NCSG and to explain to the membership
> how their
> votes are in support of noncommercial interests. NCSG GNSO
> Councilors
> should work with the NCSG-PC to develop NCSG policy positions.
> NCSG GNSO
> Council Representatives are expected to keep the NCSG membership
> informed of policy issues before the GNSO Council, to seek input
> from
> the NCSG membership and to be responsive to member requests for
> information on matters pending before the Council."
>
> Last but not least. If you look at the voting history in the
> GNSO, it is
> clear that there is a pattern of Ed structurally making other
> choices
> than the other NCSG GNSO councilors. I do not think this is
> necessarily
> bad, but I do not see any explanation for this reflected in Ed’s
> statement.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
>
> On 08/19/2016 12:57 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
>
> I would like to raise an issue that was completely avoided
> in our
> discussions yesterday.
>
>
>
> Probably the biggest issue facing the whole ICANN
> environment right now
> is the IANA transition – the end of US Govt control of the
> DNS root
> zone, and the completion of ICANN’s movement toward
> self-governance.
>
>
>
> My sense is that the overwhelming majority of us in this
> Stakeholder
> Group (NCSG) are in favor of the transition and the
> accountability
> reforms associated with it. None of us thinks they are
> perfect, of
> course, but almost all of us believe that we are better off
> making those
> changes than sticking with the status quo.
>
>
>
> There are a few exceptions. It is clear that the Heritage
> Foundation,
> one of our (eligible!) member organization, is working very
> hard in
> Washington to raise obstacles to the transition. It appears
> to me that
> one of our Council members, Ed Morris, has aligned himself
> with the
> Heritage folks in opposing completion of the transition at
> this time,
> though I could be wrong about that.
>
>
>
> I think it is perfectly acceptable for there to be different
> views
> within the NCSG. However, it’s also critical for our members
> to know
> what they are voting for, and to have that debate openly. To
> my mind, a
> Council member who actively works against the completion of the
> transition has a dramatically different vision of the nature
> of ICANN
> and its long term future than one who wants to move ahead
> with the
> accountability reforms and IANA transition.
>
>
>
> Therefore it’s critical for our members to know how all
> Councilors stand
> on this question.
>
>
>
> So I’d like to see the candidates answer these questions;
>
>
>
> 1. Do you think that if the U.S. Congress blocks the
> transition in
> the next 6 weeks that it will be a disaster for the
> multistakeholder
> model of Internet governance? Why or why not?
>
>
>
> 2. Are you actively supporting the Heritage
> Foundation’s (and
> other rightwing groups’) efforts to mobilize Congressional
> Republicans
> to block the transition?
>
>
>
> 3. How do you think we as a SG should respond if the
> transition is
> blocked by the U.S. Congress?
>
>
>
>
>
> I look forward to discussion of these questions by the
> candidates.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> *On Behalf Of
> *William Drake
> *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2016 6:04 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* A Few Take-Aways from Meet the Candidates Call
> re: Council
> Transparency and Coordination
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> Yesterday’s call provided a useful opportunity for dialogue
> on the
> candidates’ views and priorities and also turned out to
> offer some folks
> a chance to start clearing the air, however uncomfortably,
> regarding
> issues that arose within our Council contingent the last
> cycle. I’d
> like to suggest a couple take-aways in hopes that we can
> re-set that
> which needs to be and move forward on a firmer footing.
> Purely my own
> views, which I guess some folks will disagree with, in which
> case fine,
> let’s talk it out.
>
>
>
> 1. Differences of perspective among Councilors are fine but
> these
> should be openly shared in order to preserve trust. It might
> make sense
> for the interested parties to find some congenial space in
> which to
> privately work through past bits of friction that arose re: e.g.
> Marrakech, the GNSO chair selection, and whatever else. It
> doesn’t make
> sense to leave misunderstandings unresolved and entrenched
> as it can
> impact on the effectiveness of the team effort going
> forward. Hyderabad
> obviously offers F2F options, which are likely to be the
> most productive
> in coming to resolutions, but it might make sense not to
> wait entirely
> on this.
>
>
>
> 2. It would be helpful if Councilors could be sure to attend
> the monthly
> NCSG calls and proactively share their thinking about
> upcoming Council
> meetings and votes with each other and the wider
> membership. In ancient
> times when I was on Council we regarded these as fairly
> mandatory and
> tried to miss only exceptionally and with notification, but more
> recently participation seems to have be spottier at times (I
> believe the
> NCSG chair has attendance records?). Yes we’re all
> volunteers with day
> jobs and travels so things can happen, but it shouldn’t be
> the case that
> people miss more than a couple per annual cycle.
>
>
>
> 3. In parallel, it’d be good to have greater open discussion
> of pending
> votes and positions on the NCSG PC mail list. I’ve been on
> that list
> since we set it up in 2011 (first as a Councilor, then as an
> observer)
> and think it’s under-utilized resource that should work in
> synch with
> our monthly calls and those of the Council. Of course,
> issues should
> not always be sorted purely on an internal PC basis;
> important policy
> choices at least should also be vetted on ncsg-discuss so
> the PC is well
> informed by a feel for general member sentiment, even if
> it’s divided.
>
>
>
> Either way, between the monthly calls and the PC, we
> shouldn’t have
> cases where members of the team don’t know until they arrive
> at a
> Council meeting how their colleagues will vote, or what
> contacts and
> representations of the group’s shared positions are being
> made to other
> stakeholder groups, etc. You can’t have a team effort if
> people are
> unaware of each others’ doings.
>
>
>
> 4. Part of the PC’s challenge has always been to ensure
> effective
> chairing, including tracking of progress on open projects,
> herding cats,
> etc. We’ve always appointed Councilors to chair but the
> results have
> been variable as people are already maxed out. On
> yesterday’s call Ed
> made a suggestion that merits consideration: having a
> non-Council member
> as chair, and allocating one of the NCSG travel slots to
> this person so
> as to promote their continuous coordination of the process.
> It’d be
> interesting to hear views on this.
>
>
>
> 5. After-meeting reporting to the membership of the issues
> and votes
> should be routinized. This doesn’t have involve demanding
> magnum opus
> treatments, a couple paragraphs one a month should be
> sufficient and
> doable. I’d suggested (below) that the six Councilors could
> rotate the
> responsibility, as was briefly attempted in 2009-2010.
> Stephanie
> counter-proposed on the call that reporting be done by
> non-Councilors,
> in part as a way of on-boarding ‘new blood’ and helping to
> prepare folks
> to stand for Council in a future election. This could work too,
> although it may involve some extra coordination to ensure every
> Councilors’ votes and views are reflected to taste. Worth a
> try…
>
>
>
> If we could do at least some of this, I think it’d increase
> our team’s
> solidarity and our general members’ understanding of what their
> representative are up to, what’s in play in the GNSO, and
> what the
> opportunities for engaging in working groups and such are.
> It’d also
> make our votes in elections more well informed.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2016, at 10:39, William Drake
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2016, at 23:38, Robin Gross
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Agreed. It is important for members to become more
> acquainted
> with our representatives and resumes are extremely
> helpful for that.
>
>
>
> Sharing candidates’ resumes is not a bad idea. But I’d
> like to
> suggest we go beyond this. Two issue we might want to
> consider on
> tomorrow’s call:
>
>
>
> When I joined Council in 2009, we discussed the need for
> better
> reporting to members as to what their reps were actually
> doing in
> Council. We launched an attempt to deal with this by having
> Councilors take turns doing brief reports about Council
> meetings.
> Alas it didn’t get far, after a couple times the sense of
> urgency
> faded, people told themselves “well, members can always
> look at the
> Council archive to see what’s happening," and the effort
> drifted
> off. But of course it’s actually not easy for a member
> to dive
> through the Council archive and try to reconstruct what’s
> happening,
> and it’s not so hard to compose a one or two paragraph
> summary of a
> monthly Council meeting indicating how our reps voted on
> which
> issues, especially if the workload is rotated among six
> Councilors,
> making it just a few times per year each. So while it’s
> a bit
> uncomfortable suggesting work to be done by others, I’d
> like to put
> this idea back on the table ahead of our Meet the
> Candidates call
> tomorrow. It need not be an one onerous thing, and after
> all we
> exist to participate in the GNSO, so surely we should be
> able to
> know how our reps are representing us in the GNSO.
> Especially when
> we’re being asked to vote them into ‘office’ (for
> incumbents) on the
> basis of past performance.
>
>
>
> More generally, we have long debated the matter of
> coordination
> among Council reps. Unlike most if not all other parts
> of the GNSO,
> NCSG by charter doesn’t normally do ‘directed voting,’
> where the
> members are bound to vote in conformity with a rough
> consensus
> position. We have a charter provision to do this in
> exceptional
> cases, but I don’t recall it ever being invoked. We’ve
> always been
> content to operate on the notion that the Councilor does
> what s/he
> thinks is in the best interest of civil society @ GNSO,
> and if
> members don’t approve of anyone’s action they can vote
> them out in
> the next cycle. But as that has not really happened,
> it’s sort of a
> meaningless check and balance. And this is not without
> consequence,
> as we’ve sometimes had internal differences within our
> contingent
> that have arguably undermined our effectiveness and
> credibility in
> the eyes of the community and staff, and can even allow
> our various
> business stakeholder group counterparts to exploit the
> differences
> in order to push through what they want in opposition to
> our common
> baseline views. So at a minimum, we need to do better
> somehow at
> team coordination and make sure all our Councilors know
> what each
> other is doing and why and so there’s no real time surprises,
> especially during meetings with high stakes votes.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> --
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>
>
> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>
>
>
>
> *************************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> /The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th
> Anniversary Reflections/
> New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC
> *************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital
Article 19
www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
|
