Hi Stephanie and welcome back, Marilia,
Stephanie, I was wondering where our questions to the Board on the
.ORG Sale currently stand? In light of recent developments, including
release of the PICs (which concern many of us greatly), we should
probably work together on questions to the Board re: .ORG. *Is there a
current draft of our Board question on this topic? *
Who would present our questions and help lead this discussion with the
Board -- perhaps Mitch Stoltz, Milton Mueller, myself...?
**All, if you have not seen, NCSG has been deeply involved in the
discussion and here are a few of the more recent pieces (spoiler alert
- lots of work went into these materials):**
EFF Calls For Disclosure of Secret Financing Details Behind $1.1
Billion .ORG Sale, Asks FTC To Scrutinize Deal
Transaction Saddles .ORG Registry With $360 Million In Debt (with
Americans For Financial Reform, a US nonprofit, specializing in
private equity examination) --
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-seeks-disclosure-secret-financing-details-behind-11-billion-org-sale-asks-ftc
Dissecting the ISOC/PIR/Ethod Transaction (with Ways to Ensure PIR's
2002 Commitment) - I post the words/slides of Ben Leff, a professor
specializing in charitable and nonprofit law --
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200227_dissecting_the_isoc_pir_ethos_transaction_dot_org/
EFF and NTEN in The NonProfitTimes - Commentary: .ORG Still Won't be
Safe --
https://www.thenonprofittimes.com/npt_articles/commentary-org-still-wouldnt-be-safe/ (early review of the
PICs)
Internet Governance Project -- Ethos Capital’s Proposed PIC: An
Analysis for ORG registrants --
https://www.internetgovernance.org/articles/
General Agreement on Common Concerns at PIJIP’s 2/11 Discussion of the
Sale of .ORG, AU PIJIP Program,
https://www.wcl.american.edu/impact/initiatives-programs/pijip/news/general-agreement-on-common-concerns-at-pijips-2-11-discussion-of-the-sale-of-org/
ICANN Told to Make Ethos Capital Conform to Original ORG RFP Criteria
[Summary of our NCSG Letter to the ICANN Board], Internet Governance
Project,
https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/12/11/icann-told-to-make-ethos-capital-conform-to-original-org-rfp-criteria/
Please add more! Let's track our own work and the work of our members :-).
Best, Kathy
Quoting Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]>:
> Thanks for jumping in, and long time no see Marilia! Indeed these
> are great questions, and we will convey this in our discussion with
> the board next week. We raised the issue of striking at working
> group to look at how to improve virtual meetings, particularly
> important given the distinct possibility that ICANN68 will also be
> cancelled if this virus continues to be problematic.
>
> Even if we cannot get a community-wide effort to mobilize on the
> points you raise, in my view we have to do it for NCSG because we
> are largely volunteers and are hit hard by the cancellation of face
> to face opportunities to build coalitions and policy positions.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> NCSG Chair
>
> On 2020-03-03 11:41 a.m., Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Long time :) I could not resist to jump in, since remote
> participation (RP) is a very dear topic to me. This was actually how
> I started to be actively involved in Internet Governance back in
> 2007. After the IGF that year, myself and a bunch of other youth
> (hey Rafik! :) that had been supported to attend the meeting found
> ourselves with no support to continue involved and we decided to
> work on improving remote participation at the IGF. The adoption of a
> new platform, a more consistent methodology and IGF hubs followed
> this effort.
>
> The sad Corona developments and the climate change crisis are
> creating a new momentum in which enhanced RP has become a necessity.
> We need to 'save' traveling for when traveling is strictly needed. A
> lot of improvements have been achieved with RP in the last years.
> The whole experience was disappointing and jittery back in 2007.
> Technology made large progress. Methodology and know-how made some
> progress too. ICANN could provide a remarkable testbed for the
> future of RP in this Corona and climate-aware world. ICANN has three
> incredible assets: financial and technical resources, and a
> pre-existing highly organised community.
>
> - Does ICANN have a strategic plan for this first time ever
> all-online meeting? Can we access it, comment on it, make suggestions?
>
> - Does this strategy include technical elements as well as human
> considerations? A flawless platform is not everything. People need
> to feel engaged, motivated, immersed. These are human and
> psychological aspects.
>
> - Does ICANN have a contact person responsible for this
> strategy?Someone who's taking the lead? Could we contact this person
> to share our thoughts and concerns?
>
> - Can we expect that people will be given days-off from their jobs
> to attend this online meeting? With the exception of the time needed
> to actually travel, RP requires as much time and engagement as
> physical meetings. If people are not allowed time off, their
> attention will naturally be elsewhere. Perhaps our colleagues from
> other constituencies will be exempted from work obligations to
> attend the online meeting, but will NCSG members? Could ICANN help,
> for example, by providing a letter that could be shared with the
> hierarchy in our jobs explaining why this meeting will be online and
> that it will require as much dedication as a physical meeting?
> Sometimes institutional backing helps.
>
> - I agree it is difficult to expect that people will put alarms in
> the middle of the night and wander alone like zombies in their homes
> following an online meeting. Is there still a chance to organise
> local ICANN hubs (they could be backed by local ISPs, ISOC chapters
> etc), in which people gather together in a physical place to take
> part in ICANN? The advantage would be to maintain at least the local
> networking element, to make the experience a bit more convivial, etc.
>
> - It is still expected that some people will only be partially
> available during the day. Life kicks-in, there are kids to pick up
> and feed, for example. How can NCSG organise preparatory thematic
> meetings to discuss substance and positions in advance, so these
> people have the chance to voice their opinions in a way that is duly
> summarised and conveyed by NCSG's leadership during the meeting?
>
> Time is very short, but just a few questions for reflection.
>
> Looking forward to the experiment and to connecting with you.
> Best,
> Marilia
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 4:04 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I dont know if we need a later-the-same-day-discussion and, as I
> pointed out in my previous email, what we are trying to address here
> is a problem we already face with the normal onsite meetings which
> is bridging our onsite participation with the one on remote.
>
> Schedule is out now<https://meetings.icann.org/en/remote67> and we
> have around 70 sessions, if im not forgetting any. But given that
> this time the meeting will be hosted roughly on 8 zoom rooms, with
> two of them only for either French or spanish speakers, to be used
> by GAC or ALAC. this adds a language barrier to our meetings or even
> some of the PDPs. Hence our idea of sharing information more
> actively on the list, but Im not too sure of what the model should
> really be.
>
> Best,
> B
>
> Le lun. 2 mars 2020 à 11:42, Niels ten Oever
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> a
> écrit :
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> It might be me but, why do we need a later-the-same-day discussion
> group? Ppl can put their alarm clock and stay up, in the same way as
> they would with 'normal' or 'normal-remote' participation? Otherwise
> we could perhaps be a bit more verbose in the chatlog in our public
> channel so people can read the chatlogs?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Niels
>
>
> On 3/2/20 3:04 PM, Stephanie E Perrin wrote:
>> Well that sounds like you are volunteering to help organize a
>> later-that-same-day discussion group, Niels! :-D
>>
>> I think we need to do something to engage folks who are outside the
>> time zones (09:00-17:00 EST or Cancun time) as otherwise, we are
>> stuck listening to Zoom tapes. The transcription on Zoom must be
>> robotic, it is really pretty bad, so we need to help folks
>> understand what when on that day IMO.
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>> On 2020-03-02 6:41 a.m., Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I am actually very excited about the remote meeting, since the
>>> existing practice of a traveling circus does not really seem the
>>> best way to create an inclusive and sustainable environment. I'd
>>> much rather shift my times at home than traveling all around the
>>> world to do the same.
>>>
>>> What are the current chat / discussion channels and platforms
>>> people use to discuss and navigate the meeting?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Niels
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/2/20 6:07 AM, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote:
>>>> I totally agree that, at this point we are facing a first time
>>>> experiment and it may not be as problematic to collapse the NCSG,
>>>> NCUC or NPOC meetings. But if the COVID situation continues to
>>>> spread, we will most likely face another virtual meeting and
>>>> maybe it would interesting for us as a Constituency and
>>>> Stakeholder group to reassess this experience and check what
>>>> worked or not. As well as how to ensure participation considering
>>>> thelimited resources for translation services
>>>> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/language-services-at-icann67?fbclid=IwAR3YQXqWvnt4lH8UXSTwvPSMW4bUAZRkKnofdLM9Vz5mdIiyRQURK4GnssY#.Xlu8mylZ8M0.facebook>, for an
>>>> example.
>>>>
>>>> My decision on cancelling the NCUC meetings was due to the fact
>>>> that we have members in a lot of places and adding the weight of
>>>> Constituency Meetings to this first experience could make it a
>>>> bit harder - due to the different timezones. Therefore the idea
>>>> of hosting a members call a few weeks later for us to reassess
>>>> icann67 seemed like a better idea.
>>>>
>>>> In some ways, this experience might indeed be positive. Generally
>>>> speaking, those of us attending meetings onsite tend to get
>>>> really caught up with the work and f2f interactions that finding
>>>> easy and authentic ways of reporting the meetings to remote
>>>> participants is something long overdue. As mentioned by
>>>> @Stephanie Perrin
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, maybe we can think of a way to help people who wont be able to be online and participate at the meeting live - I would like to offer the Blog space at ncuc.org<http://ncuc.org> <http://ncuc.org> for anyone willing to write short summaries of the
>>>> sessions.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Bruna Santos
>>>> NCUC Chair
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le sam. 29 févr. 2020 à 17:19, Mueller, Milton L
>>>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to Bruna for keeping us updated on what is going on
>>>> with the all-virtual meeting, I guess we can call it the Zoom
>>>> meeting. Appreciate the explanation, and agree with many of your
>>>> criticisms. ____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> But in one sense I think is fine to collapse the NCSG and
>>>> NCUC meetings. I would not call that an abandonment of the NCUC,
>>>> let’s just call it a merger. I hope you as well as NPOC can stick
>>>> some of their own things into the agenda. And it don’t hurt us to
>>>> discuss those things together. Everyone knows I don’t believe
>>>> there should be separate constituencies anyway, just the unified
>>>> SG. So it might do us good to meet together. ____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> In that sense I agree with Benjamin that we can make
>>>> lemonade out of this lemon and maybe make use of the opportunity
>>>> to improve the multistakeholder model ____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller____
>>>>
>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology____
>>>>
>>>> School of Public Policy____
>>>>
>>>> IGP_logo_gold block____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Ncuc-discuss
>>>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> *On Behalf Of *Benjamin
>>>> Akinmoyeje
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2020 10:00 PM
>>>> *To:* Bruna Martins dos Santos
>>>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
>>>> *Cc:* NCUC Discuss
>>>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Updates on ICANN67____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> Dear Chair,____
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the update. It is indeed a challenge, just
>>>> like every experiment is. Change is always constant, also in the
>>>> face of the health challenges, the world faces at this present
>>>> time. ____
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we can make some lemonade out of this lemon without
>>>> hurting the MS model and rather improve it.____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,____
>>>>
>>>> Benjamin____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 6:59 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos
>>>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
>>>> wrote:____
>>>>
>>>> We just got off another planning call, and with some new updates:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Number of sessions has been cut down from over 300
>>>> sessions to less than 75 - all in UTC-5. ____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> 2. Upon request ICANN can provide zoom rooms with live
>>>> translation to both French and Spanish. But we need to gather
>>>> within our constituency whether there will be interest for any of
>>>> the channels just so ICANN can set up one for NCSG or if we could
>>>> just join the ones being facilitated to ALAC and GAC.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me or @Maryam Bakoshi
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> know
>>>> if you would like to attend the meeting from either one of the
>>>> channels - Spanish or French ones. ____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> Best regards, ____
>>>>
>>>> Bruna Santos ____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> Le ven. 28 févr. 2020 à 12:23, Bruna Martins dos Santos
>>>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> a
>>>> écrit :____
>>>>
>>>> Dear NCUC,
>>>>
>>>> I just wanted to write you a short update on the
>>>> upcoming ICANN virtual meeting. As you're all aware, recently
>>>> ICANN decided to no longer host an onsite meeting and gave their
>>>> staff and the Community Leaders the - impossible - challenge of
>>>> organizing in two weeks an virtual meeting that should attempt at
>>>> reproducing what would've been the schedule of ICANN67.
>>>>
>>>> On that note some important things:
>>>> (a) NCUC will no longer host any sessions during
>>>> this virtual meeting. On the interest of time and already
>>>> foreseeing some difficulties our members might have in following
>>>> this meeting, we will host our Members and EC session at a later
>>>> date. ____
>>>>
>>>> (b) ICANN67 Schedule will be shorter. Comm leaders
>>>> were asked to only keep strictly necessary sessions and the
>>>> consensus around the group was to keep mostly PDPs, Review Teams
>>>> or any other Cross-community work we deemed necessary.
>>>> (c) Timezone will be Cancun TImezone - UTC -5 - and
>>>> the meeting will run for shorter hours than normal, from 9h00 to
>>>> 17h00. ____
>>>>
>>>> (d) Live Translation Services will only be provided
>>>> for English to Spanish + some live transcripts that could be
>>>> translated. We understand that decision should be slightly
>>>> exclusionary for other communities such as the Francophone
>>>> community and maybe we could think of ways of having our french
>>>> speakers writing up summaries of the sessions to be shared on the
>>>> list. ____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> With regards to the final schedule I believe ICANN
>>>> should be able to provide us a new one by the beginning of next
>>>> week.____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> Last but not least, I would like to highlight how
>>>> problematic this experiment has been. Of course it is a first
>>>> time for ICANN and for us volunteers, but the decision of
>>>> adapting the entire schedule in two weeks is ambitious to say the
>>>> least. I also fear that this experiment ends up harming the MS
>>>> model we have built ICANN around, whether virtual or onsite, a
>>>> lot of the communities interactions are being sacrificed on
>>>> behalf of this first experiment and I just hope we get to have an
>>>> onsite Kuala Lumpur meeting as well as a broader community
>>>> discussions about this first virtual meeting. ____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> While I highly appreciate all the efforts being made
>>>> by David Olive, Tanzanica, the meetings team and Maryam in making
>>>> sure our priority meetings do make it to the schedule, (personal
>>>> thought) I would've wished for ICANN to just call this meeting of
>>>> or even postpone it for us to have a bit more time in discussing
>>>> with our constituents what the priorities should be and how to
>>>> better adjust the schedule. ____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> I will keep you all posted when there are more
>>>> updates on the virtual meeting. ____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> ____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> -- ____
>>>>
>>>> */Bruna Martins dos Santos /*____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos____
>>>>
>>>> @boomartins____
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> -- ____
>>>>
>>>> */Bruna Martins dos Santos /*____
>>>>
>>>> __ __
>>>>
>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos____
>>>>
>>>> @boomartins____
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>
>>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss____
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> */Bruna Martins dos Santos /*
>>>>
>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>>> @boomartins
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
> --
> Niels ten Oever
> Researcher and PhD Candidate
> Datactive Research Group
> University of Amsterdam
>
> PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
> 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
> --
> Bruna Martins dos Santos
>
> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
> @boomartins
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
> --
>
> ______________________________
>
> Marília Maciel
>
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher | DiploFoundation
> WMO | 7bis, Avenue de la Paix | 1202 Geneva - Switzerland
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | @MariliaM
> www.diplomacy.edu<http://www.diplomacy.edu/>
>
> [Upcoming courses]<https://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
|
