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:
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 26 May 2016 21:26:36 +0000
Reply-To:
James Gannon <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
James Gannon <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version:
1.0
In-Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
base64
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
Fully agree with both of you.









On 26/05/2016, 22:04, "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:



>+1 Mathew

>

>I was really surprised how the day previous to the Helsinki meeting has 

>suddenly become the official Kick-off meeting of the WS2, all under the 

>same team as WS1, without any discussion about it. I don’t think we 

>have another Council meeting before Helsinki, but we should consider 

>discussing it in the Council list ASAP, instead of waiting for 

>Hyderabad.

>

>best regards

>

>Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez

>+506 8837 7176

>Skype: carlos.raulg

>Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)

>On 26 May 2016, at 14:56, 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] 

>>> <mailto:[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


ATOM RSS1 RSS2