Dear Ed,
Another week has gone by. These questions have been open for quite a
while now, just like the elections. I would like to ask you again to
answer these questions, because I think this is part of your obligations
as a councilor as well as a candidate.
Best,
Niels
On 08/22/2016 06:53 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> 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
|
