NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
hfaiedh ines <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 27 May 2016 13:59:55 +0200
Reply-To:
Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=utf-8
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (265 lines)
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
> 
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

ATOM RSS1 RSS2