+ 1 Rafik
On 22/08/2016 01:04, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we constantly advocate for long time for Human Right dimension at
> policy development in ICANN in generic names and we made a lot of
> progress in the last years that really surprises me when I recall
> reactions about the topic in council till I left just 4 years.
>
> The inclusion in the bylaws can be seen as a success. I may understand
> the concerns of some regarding how that can be interpreted by other,
> if it has any unintended consequences or if the language is enough
> satisfactory but I don't see how that can be a blocking issue nor that
> we should take a conservative position toward statu quo.
>
> we can and we are working on defining safeguards to mitigate the
> risks, via the framework of interpretation in the workstream 2 and the
> Human Rights subgroup. we need to keep our commitment there with all
> NCSG volunteers.
>
> we know by experience that we have to fight and work for the long run
> and that the inclusion is just a stepping stone for more work to come.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2016-08-20 16:55 GMT+09:00 William Drake <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
> (was: A Few Take-Aways from Meet the Candidates Call re: Council
> Transparency and Coordination)
>
> Hi
>
> How about we discuss the human rights issue issue under this
> subject line?
>
> I have to admit I that I too was puzzled by what happened in
> Marrakech on this, both in real time and after reading the
> transcript. It would be good to understand everyones’ views on
> this crucial issue.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
>> On Aug 19, 2016, at 20:52, Niels ten Oever
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I think Bill and Milton raised very important questions
>> concerning the
>> work of the GNSO. I would like to ask two more questions based on
>> what
>> Milton has already asked.
>>
>> I read in Ed’s statement about his strong commitment to freedom of
>> expression. I would like to ask again – after asking this in
>> person, in
>> a session and in the +1 thread here, because I believe it is
>> important
>> for us to know: Why did Ed vote, as the only GNSO councilor,
>> against the
>> addition of a commitment for ICANN to respect human rights to
>> ICANN bylaws?
>> This is not just about NCSG GNSO councilors, but Ed was only one
>> of ALL
>> GNSO councilors to vote against the commitment to human rights.
>>
>> And furthermore, why did Ed not discuss this openly, before the
>> vote, on
>> the NCSG list. Because I think the concerns Ed had were not shared
>> widely within the NCSG, except for Heritage and himself.
>>
>> I find it a problem of accountability how Ed continuously seem to not
>> want to discuss this openly within our constituency, but does vote on
>> behalf of it. Here I would like to quote the charter again:
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> Last but not least. If you look at the voting history in the
>> GNSO, it is
>> clear that there is a pattern of Ed structurally making other choices
>> than the other NCSG GNSO councilors. I do not think this is
>> necessarily
>> bad, but I do not see any explanation for this reflected in Ed’s
>> statement.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>>
>> On 08/19/2016 12:57 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>> I would like to raise an issue that was completely avoided in our
>>> discussions yesterday.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Probably the biggest issue facing the whole ICANN environment
>>> right now
>>> is the IANA transition – the end of US Govt control of the DNS root
>>> zone, and the completion of ICANN’s movement toward self-governance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My sense is that the overwhelming majority of us in this Stakeholder
>>> Group (NCSG) are in favor of the transition and the accountability
>>> reforms associated with it. None of us thinks they are perfect, of
>>> course, but almost all of us believe that we are better off
>>> making those
>>> changes than sticking with the status quo.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are a few exceptions. It is clear that the Heritage
>>> Foundation,
>>> one of our (eligible!) member organization, is working very hard in
>>> Washington to raise obstacles to the transition. It appears to
>>> me that
>>> one of our Council members, Ed Morris, has aligned himself with the
>>> Heritage folks in opposing completion of the transition at this
>>> time,
>>> though I could be wrong about that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it is perfectly acceptable for there to be different views
>>> within the NCSG. However, it’s also critical for our members to know
>>> what they are voting for, and to have that debate openly. To my
>>> mind, a
>>> Council member who actively works against the completion of the
>>> transition has a dramatically different vision of the nature of
>>> ICANN
>>> and its long term future than one who wants to move ahead with the
>>> accountability reforms and IANA transition.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Therefore it’s critical for our members to know how all
>>> Councilors stand
>>> on this question.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So I’d like to see the candidates answer these questions;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Do you think that if the U.S. Congress blocks the
>>> transition in
>>> the next 6 weeks that it will be a disaster for the multistakeholder
>>> model of Internet governance? Why or why not?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Are you actively supporting the Heritage Foundation’s (and
>>> other rightwing groups’) efforts to mobilize Congressional
>>> Republicans
>>> to block the transition?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. How do you think we as a SG should respond if the
>>> transition is
>>> blocked by the U.S. Congress?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I look forward to discussion of these questions by the candidates.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>>
>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>
>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of
>>> *William Drake
>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2016 6:04 AM
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> *Subject:* A Few Take-Aways from Meet the Candidates Call re:
>>> Council
>>> Transparency and Coordination
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yesterday’s call provided a useful opportunity for dialogue on the
>>> candidates’ views and priorities and also turned out to offer
>>> some folks
>>> a chance to start clearing the air, however uncomfortably, regarding
>>> issues that arose within our Council contingent the last cycle. I’d
>>> like to suggest a couple take-aways in hopes that we can re-set that
>>> which needs to be and move forward on a firmer footing. Purely
>>> my own
>>> views, which I guess some folks will disagree with, in which
>>> case fine,
>>> let’s talk it out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Differences of perspective among Councilors are fine but these
>>> should be openly shared in order to preserve trust. It might
>>> make sense
>>> for the interested parties to find some congenial space in which to
>>> privately work through past bits of friction that arose re: e.g.
>>> Marrakech, the GNSO chair selection, and whatever else. It
>>> doesn’t make
>>> sense to leave misunderstandings unresolved and entrenched as it can
>>> impact on the effectiveness of the team effort going forward.
>>> Hyderabad
>>> obviously offers F2F options, which are likely to be the most
>>> productive
>>> in coming to resolutions, but it might make sense not to wait
>>> entirely
>>> on this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. It would be helpful if Councilors could be sure to attend the
>>> monthly
>>> NCSG calls and proactively share their thinking about upcoming
>>> Council
>>> meetings and votes with each other and the wider membership. In
>>> ancient
>>> times when I was on Council we regarded these as fairly
>>> mandatory and
>>> tried to miss only exceptionally and with notification, but more
>>> recently participation seems to have be spottier at times (I
>>> believe the
>>> NCSG chair has attendance records?). Yes we’re all volunteers
>>> with day
>>> jobs and travels so things can happen, but it shouldn’t be the
>>> case that
>>> people miss more than a couple per annual cycle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. In parallel, it’d be good to have greater open discussion of
>>> pending
>>> votes and positions on the NCSG PC mail list. I’ve been on that
>>> list
>>> since we set it up in 2011 (first as a Councilor, then as an
>>> observer)
>>> and think it’s under-utilized resource that should work in synch
>>> with
>>> our monthly calls and those of the Council. Of course, issues should
>>> not always be sorted purely on an internal PC basis; important
>>> policy
>>> choices at least should also be vetted on ncsg-discuss so the PC
>>> is well
>>> informed by a feel for general member sentiment, even if it’s
>>> divided.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Either way, between the monthly calls and the PC, we shouldn’t have
>>> cases where members of the team don’t know until they arrive at a
>>> Council meeting how their colleagues will vote, or what contacts and
>>> representations of the group’s shared positions are being made
>>> to other
>>> stakeholder groups, etc. You can’t have a team effort if people are
>>> unaware of each others’ doings.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4. Part of the PC’s challenge has always been to ensure effective
>>> chairing, including tracking of progress on open projects,
>>> herding cats,
>>> etc. We’ve always appointed Councilors to chair but the results
>>> have
>>> been variable as people are already maxed out. On yesterday’s
>>> call Ed
>>> made a suggestion that merits consideration: having a
>>> non-Council member
>>> as chair, and allocating one of the NCSG travel slots to this
>>> person so
>>> as to promote their continuous coordination of the process. It’d be
>>> interesting to hear views on this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. After-meeting reporting to the membership of the issues and
>>> votes
>>> should be routinized. This doesn’t have involve demanding
>>> magnum opus
>>> treatments, a couple paragraphs one a month should be sufficient and
>>> doable. I’d suggested (below) that the six Councilors could
>>> rotate the
>>> responsibility, as was briefly attempted in 2009-2010. Stephanie
>>> counter-proposed on the call that reporting be done by
>>> non-Councilors,
>>> in part as a way of on-boarding ‘new blood’ and helping to
>>> prepare folks
>>> to stand for Council in a future election. This could work too,
>>> although it may involve some extra coordination to ensure every
>>> Councilors’ votes and views are reflected to taste. Worth a try…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If we could do at least some of this, I think it’d increase our
>>> team’s
>>> solidarity and our general members’ understanding of what their
>>> representative are up to, what’s in play in the GNSO, and what the
>>> opportunities for engaging in working groups and such are. It’d
>>> also
>>> make our votes in elections more well informed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 17, 2016, at 10:39, William Drake <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 23:38, Robin Gross
>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed. It is important for members to become more
>>> acquainted
>>> with our representatives and resumes are extremely
>>> helpful for that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sharing candidates’ resumes is not a bad idea. But I’d like to
>>> suggest we go beyond this. Two issue we might want to
>>> consider on
>>> tomorrow’s call:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When I joined Council in 2009, we discussed the need for better
>>> reporting to members as to what their reps were actually doing in
>>> Council. We launched an attempt to deal with this by having
>>> Councilors take turns doing brief reports about Council meetings.
>>> Alas it didn’t get far, after a couple times the sense of urgency
>>> faded, people told themselves “well, members can always look
>>> at the
>>> Council archive to see what’s happening," and the effort drifted
>>> off. But of course it’s actually not easy for a member to dive
>>> through the Council archive and try to reconstruct what’s
>>> happening,
>>> and it’s not so hard to compose a one or two paragraph
>>> summary of a
>>> monthly Council meeting indicating how our reps voted on which
>>> issues, especially if the workload is rotated among six
>>> Councilors,
>>> making it just a few times per year each. So while it’s a bit
>>> uncomfortable suggesting work to be done by others, I’d like
>>> to put
>>> this idea back on the table ahead of our Meet the Candidates call
>>> tomorrow. It need not be an one onerous thing, and after all we
>>> exist to participate in the GNSO, so surely we should be able to
>>> know how our reps are representing us in the GNSO.
>>> Especially when
>>> we’re being asked to vote them into ‘office’ (for incumbents)
>>> on the
>>> basis of past performance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> More generally, we have long debated the matter of coordination
>>> among Council reps. Unlike most if not all other parts of
>>> the GNSO,
>>> NCSG by charter doesn’t normally do ‘directed voting,’ where the
>>> members are bound to vote in conformity with a rough consensus
>>> position. We have a charter provision to do this in exceptional
>>> cases, but I don’t recall it ever being invoked. We’ve
>>> always been
>>> content to operate on the notion that the Councilor does what
>>> s/he
>>> thinks is in the best interest of civil society @ GNSO, and if
>>> members don’t approve of anyone’s action they can vote them
>>> out in
>>> the next cycle. But as that has not really happened, it’s
>>> sort of a
>>> meaningless check and balance. And this is not without
>>> consequence,
>>> as we’ve sometimes had internal differences within our contingent
>>> that have arguably undermined our effectiveness and
>>> credibility in
>>> the eyes of the community and staff, and can even allow our
>>> various
>>> business stakeholder group counterparts to exploit the
>>> differences
>>> in order to push through what they want in opposition to our
>>> common
>>> baseline views. So at a minimum, we need to do better somehow at
>>> team coordination and make sure all our Councilors know what each
>>> other is doing and why and so there’s no real time surprises,
>>> especially during meetings with high stakes votes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>
> *************************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> [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>
> /The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th
> Anniversary Reflections/
> New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC
> *************************************************************
>
>
--
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987
|
