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
|
