The policy call is on now Niels, if you wish to raise it. Started at 9
UTC I think...
Stephanie
On 2016-08-31 5:49, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> With another week passing by I am afraid my point is being proven: there
> is a lack of accountability a councilor and a candidate in our election.
> Ed Morris has made a _very_ strong position in Marrakesh on Human Rights
> (attached, page 39-41 or search for
> North Korea') which has not been discussed on this list with the
> community, as ordained in the charter and as I asked Ed in a policy
> meeting as well as here on the list, both before and after he made the
> statement.
>
>
>
> This means that both as a councilor and as a candidate, Ed is in breach
> of the NCSG charter, as previously quoted:
>
>
>
> "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."
>
>
>
> I have asked Ed to respond several times in person and on this list, he
> chose not to respond.
>
>
>
> This leaves me no other choice than to ask the NCSG EC to take a
> position on this.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Niels
>
> On 08/26/2016 01:01 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> 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
>>>> *************************************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
|