Hi Niels,
Asking the Councillors and the PC members to hold a discussion on-list is a very fair ask. You shouldn’t be met with any resistance to this at all, no matter what the topic is. As you pointed out, discussing policy issues is an obligation that the NCSG’s elected officers need to fulfil. I will also point out that these discussions do not have to be initiated by the Councillors/PC members.
I don’t recall a discussion about the CCWG HRs-related recommendations taking place on NCSG-DISCUSS in the past. However, NCSG-DISCUSS is not the only platform of communication for our members (although it is IMO the most important and effective). I will say that I do distinctly recall this topic being discussed at length on more than one NCSG policy call, as well as the webinars (I think there were 3 of them) the NCSG, led by our CCWG appointed member Robin Gross, organised specifically to discuss the CCWG’s work. Of course, these all took place prior to the Marrakech meeting, but not after.
As one of the Council members representing the NCSG, I certainly encourage you and others to question me and all of your Councillors on our performance. This should be true whether your questions are related to votes on motions, or even if it just regarding our day-to-day performance of Council duties.
Thanks.
Amr
> On Aug 3, 2016, at 9:02 PM, Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I have asked Ed to explain and discuss his position against the
> inclusion of a commitment to human rights in ICANNs bylaws on this list,
> both before his vote in Marakesh and after. He has not done so.
>
> I have subsequently asked members of the PC and the EC to have a
> discussion about this on this list. I thought this would not be a very
> strange ask since our charter reads:
>
> "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."
>
> So I am a bit surprised as to why I am met with so much resistance.
>
> I hope we can still have this discussion.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
>
>
> On 08/03/2016 06:31 PM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
>> Niels,
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t recall that being discussed, but I could be wrong. Are you
>> saying that the PC acted inappropriately?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Brett
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> BrettSchaefer
>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
>> Security and Foreign Policy
>> The Heritage Foundation
>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>> Washington, DC 20002
>> 202-608-6097
>> heritage.org <http://heritage.org/>
>>
>> *From:*Niels ten Oever [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 03, 2016 12:23 PM
>> *To:* Schaefer, Brett; [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: +1's and support
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Brett,
>>
>> On 08/03/2016 06:16 PM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
>>> Niels,
>>>
>>> You seem to be taking this personally. Why?
>>>
>>
>> You seem to mistake me being rigorous for taking things personal.
>>
>>> We had several meetings in Morocco where went through each of the 11
>>> recommendations and people voiced their concerns and we tried to
>>> reconcile a position. On some it was easy, others not so much. I
>>> don't recall if you attended or not.
>>>
>>
>> I attended them, and there it was also discussed that the discussion on
>> human rights should happen on the list, as well as the justification of
>> the councillors, and not just in the PC meeting. This did not happen.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Brett
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International
>>> Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis
>>> Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage
>>> Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002
>>> 202-608-6097 heritage.org
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Niels ten Oever
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016
>>> 11:47 AM To: Schaefer, Brett; [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject:
>>> Re: +1's and support
>>>
>>> On 08/03/2016 05:29 PM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
>>>
>>>> I disagree. The NCSG had various views on a number of issues in
>>>> the transition proposal. I actually though that the councilors did
>>>> a credible job of representing the diversity of views in the NCSG
>>>> by dividing their votes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Brett,
>>>
>>> I probably have missed the discussion on human rights (and how it
>>> relates to North Korea) on the NCSG-list, could you point me to it?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Niels
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
> --
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
>
> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
|
