Good suggestion, Avri.
Let's get some strategy on Work Stream 2
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> avri doria
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:29 PM
> To: [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]>> 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]" <NCSG-
> [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
|
