NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Mueller, Milton L" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mueller, Milton L
Date:
Sun, 6 Sep 2015 15:44:37 +0000
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (2907 bytes) , text/html (6 kB)
By the way, in view of the board's comments, would an acceptable compromise response be to say that we (NCSG) don't mind giving up community approval of budget and strategic plan but keeping all other elements of the SMCM? I thought that many of us were not so keen on budget and strat plan and viewed it as too micromanaging and/or a way for other stakeholders to tie up ICANN.  Bit I  hadn't followed that but closely so would like to hear from those who did.

--MM

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 5:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] CCWG comments last call

I've added a few comments.  General question: should we add some language taking into account the Board's positions outlined on the call the other day?  I noted a couple spots where this could be done but am unsure whether people want to go there...

Bill

On Sep 5, 2015, at 9:58 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

For the record I still oppose the revised formula on voting rights in
the NCSG statement.  Though it may end up a moot point, given the
Board's refusal to accept the CMSM.

avri

On 04-Sep-15 18:43, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

I have made some revisions. We seem to have rough consensus that we are opposed to the proposed voting allocations and consider them and two other things serious enough to raise doubts about whether the CCWG-Accountability proposal enhances ICANN's accountability. The comments now note that we are not unanimous on this but do have a preponderance of opinion that would constitute rough consensus. We all seem to be in agreement about our discussion of the so-called "freedom to contract" section and the section on advice from public authorities. We also now seem to have a way forward on how to handle the HR commitment, though that has only been floated a few minutes ago so it needs more review.

In reviewing these comments, please refrain from the temptation to introduce minor wordsmithing - we really don't have time for it at this point.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JGBXO5oOiN_FxivPFkHjz3Gc2w3AT2PeJznrXPw2fJ4/edit

Dr. Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

*********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org<http://www.ncuc.org>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org<http://www.williamdrake.org>
Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
*********************************************************



ATOM RSS1 RSS2