+1 Mathew

I was really surprised how the day previous to the Helsinki meeting has 
suddenly become the official Kick-off meeting of the WS2, all under the 
same team as WS1, without any discussion about it. I don’t think we 
have another Council meeting before Helsinki, but we should consider 
discussing it in the Council list ASAP, instead of waiting for 
Hyderabad.

best regards

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 26 May 2016, at 14:56, 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]>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman 
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <[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]>" 
>> <[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]]
>>>
>>> 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
> E: [log in to unmask] | T: +44.771.247.2987