+ 1 Niels - just sent out a similar note.
On 5/27/2016 12:59 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> Agreed! We've been doing some work in the CCWP HR Sub Group on
> Workstream Two as well, happy to also bring that into a discussion.
>
> Looking forward to discuss!
>
> Perhaps a webinar / discussion on the 1st, 2nd or 7th of June?
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
> On 05/27/2016 10:00 AM, hfaiedh ines wrote:
>> Great suggestion Avri. Let's start the discussion.
>>
>> 2016-05-27 9:22 GMT+02:00 Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>>
>> Good suggestion, Avri.
>> Let's get some strategy on Work Stream 2
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of
>> > avri doria
>> > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:29 PM
>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> > Subject: how do we move forward was Re: [] great opening ...
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Should we be able to work on stuff on list and in other
>> environments online in
>> > the meantime?
>> >
>> > I think it would be good to talk about WS2 in NCSG before the one day
>> > meeting in Helsinki some of us are hoping to get to by hook or by
>> crook (or
>> > will be there in remote in any case). Maybe a good time for our
>> PC to plan a
>> > webinar/discussion? Or maybe even a NCSG involvement campaign.
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> > On 26-May-16 16:56, 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]>
>> > >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman
>> > >> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
>> > >> Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> > >> <mailto:[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]>" <NCSG-
>> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> > >> <mailto:[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]
>> <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 <http://cdt.org>
>> > > E: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> | T:
>> +44.771.247.2987 <tel:%2B44.771.247.2987>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
--
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
|