I’d be happy to participate in a prep meeting/webinar.
-JG
On 27/05/2016, 07:57, "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Klaus Stoll" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I think Avri is right and we should start the discussion now., in
>particular regarding WS2. The only point I would like to make here is
>also that we should have some kind of agenda or issues list to follow.
>Otherwise we might get lost in the forest.
>
>Yours
>
>Klaus
>
>On 5/26/2016 5:28 PM, avri doria wrote:
>> 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]>> 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]" <[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
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
|
