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
*************************************************************
|
