NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 26 Sep 2014 13:25:43 +0000
Reply-To:
"Balleste, Roy" <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
"Balleste, Roy" <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version:
1.0
In-Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
base64
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
I also support to sign on.



Roy Balleste

Law Library Director &

Professor of Law

St. Thomas University Law Library

16401 NW 37th Avenue

Miami Gardens, FL 33054

305-623-2341

http://royballeste.org/





-----Original Message-----

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria

Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 8:06 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments



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

>>>>> ***********************************************

>>>>

>>>

>>

> 


ATOM RSS1 RSS2