Thanks, Avri, for observing and raising this, thanks to others who cared to make this a reality - I just now have again Internet access for some hours, while normally living again under the old "digital divide" situation in an un-served rural area.

For somebody who is pushed back into an "occasional observer" role it is just surprising to see again (and again and again) how the Board does not care about such differences in the performance of the NCSG, different from others who have a place in the GNSO, and even Fadi says something at the LA meeting - and there is no follow-up.

So, Yes, put it on the agenda of the NCSG/Board meeting in London. Including with some set time lines for follow-up monitoring, and a report required to the next Board meeting,

Avri, you say then: "what we might need to learn is that our compliance might be the error." Well, if this is so I have to give up to understand ICANN - are we not allowed to use common sense, but have to have it scrutinized by some hair-splitting "legal opinion"? - I have given up a long time ago to explain some aspects of ICANN to the friends of the Internet in Cambodia.

Norbert Klein
Phnom Penh
Cambodia

And a bit of "local flavor":
May 01 – 02 Demonstrations, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
http://jinja.apsara.org/2014/05/may-01-02-demonstrations-phnom-penh-cambodia/
State security forces beat journalists, bystanders and activists as they continued their lockdown of ‘Freedom Park’.

Or an international perspective of The Diplomat:
http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/spotlight-on-cambodian-government-brutality/
Spotlight on Cambodian Government Brutality

=

On 5/7/2014 5:53 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

Hi,

Might this be a topic we could raise in NCSG-Board meeting in
London?

sure.

Compliance with the rules is also something we can make an issue in the
GNSO review.

Of course, some from other SG (Stakeholder groups) and C
(Constituencies) might respond that the SG and C are bottom up and what
right does the Board SIC (Structural Improvements Comm) have to make
such rules in the first place.

The lesson we might need to learn is that our compliance might be the
error.  In any case the GNSO review should look into this issue.

avri

On 07-May-14 06:43, William Drake wrote:

Hi

You may recall that at our January 2012 “House” meeting in LA we told
Fadi much the same, that transparency was limited and highly variable
elsewhere, e.g. one cannot even find a proper list of the IPC’s
membership on their website, etc.  We pressed the point that there
should be uniform transparency requirements across GNSO and indeed
ICANN communities and he expressed interest in the idea and talked
about engaging Transparency International or similar to do an
evaluation.  We never followed up with him and nothing happened to my
knowledge.

Might this be a topic we could raise in NCSG-Board meeting in
London?

Bill


On May 7, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi,

I want to self congratulate our SG for being the only GNSO SG, I 
believe, to have an open archive list with meetings that have
public archived recordings and transcript.  This make us, as I
understand it, the only SG in compliance with ICANN rules about SG
practices.  I think it is good we do so, and I wish the rest of the
SG would come into compliance.

avri



On 07-May-14 01:16, Rafik Dammak wrote:

hi everyone,

please find here the mp3 recording of yesterday confcall

...