Hi,
I find I do not share the same zeal others have for some of the points
on the joint statement list. I wish it focused more on Scope and
Approval and less on varying formulas for building open community efforts.
I have lots of issues with what is written. I agree with Adam in
thinking the claim that we have figured out how to do Cross Community
Working Groups (CCWG) is a bit premature. Beyond what Adam has said, we
do not have a good method for initiating such a group. This one is Board
initiated; why is that so bad? I think that while a working group (WG)
should have change control of their charter, starting with a draft
charter someone else prepares is ok. And I think having the chartering
organization(s) approve the charter is also ok. In this case, I would
recommend that the Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committees (SOAC)
& the Board can approve any charter, if they wish. But CCWGs should be
the ones that have change control of their charters. I will possibly
send in an individual comment to that effect. Others who have their own
points of view should consider their own brief comments.
But I also see value in working with the other Supporting Organizations
& Advisory Committees (SOAC) & GNSO Stakeholder groups (SG). Given that
the NCSG has not prepared its own comment, and has been working with the
rest of SOAC & SGs this far on statements, not doing so now is probably
a political statement we don't want to make. We should probably join the
rest of them in this too.
As time runs out today/tomorrow, I think we should sign on.
avri
On 26-Sep-14 07:39, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> lets go back to some basics here,
> Keith from registries stakeholder group shared the statement and asked if
> we can have a joint statement between all ICANN groups. we have such
> document to review, to comment and suggesting concrete and specific tweaks.
> We are in consultation mode and see how we can go from there since no
> decision was discussed or made. nobody said that we will endorse it in the
> next 2 hours!!
>
> I think there is enough understanding that consultation within different
> groups takes time and need to be done properly. lets focus in substance and
> found if there is any point we disagree with in the statement and tell
> other ICANN groups.
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-09-26 18:15 GMT+09:00 Adam <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>
>>> Well this isn't a departure from what we said a month ago and a month
>> before that.
>>
>>
>> It's a new statement.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>> Nothing new here that we haven't already gone over to exhaustion
>> before. Do you have any issues with the substance of the statement (which
>> raises concerns NCSG raised over a month ago)?
>>>
>>> If you have suggestions for edits, bring them forward. Don't presume we
>> can't and should just walk away.
>>>
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Adam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:41 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree with everything in the statement and think we should sign?
>>>>
>>>> 36 hours is an adequate constituency review period, a fair
>> interpretation of the NCUC and NCSG charters?
>>>>
>>>> We (our leaders...) asked for a 21day comment period, and the first we
>> hear of a comment is with less than two days left. My concern is not with
>> what other constituencies say, but with NCUC/NCSG process, which seems
>> lacking.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for you efforts to make the SO/AC more transparent. Appreciated,
>> shame it seems to be such a battle, but thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> ***********************************************
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
