I also support to sign on. Roy Balleste Law Library Director & Professor of Law St. Thomas University Law Library 16401 NW 37th Avenue Miami Gardens, FL 33054 305-623-2341 http://royballeste.org/ -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 8:06 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments Hi, I find I do not share the same zeal others have for some of the points on the joint statement list. I wish it focused more on Scope and Approval and less on varying formulas for building open community efforts. I have lots of issues with what is written. I agree with Adam in thinking the claim that we have figured out how to do Cross Community Working Groups (CCWG) is a bit premature. Beyond what Adam has said, we do not have a good method for initiating such a group. This one is Board initiated; why is that so bad? I think that while a working group (WG) should have change control of their charter, starting with a draft charter someone else prepares is ok. And I think having the chartering organization(s) approve the charter is also ok. In this case, I would recommend that the Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committees (SOAC) & the Board can approve any charter, if they wish. But CCWGs should be the ones that have change control of their charters. I will possibly send in an individual comment to that effect. Others who have their own points of view should consider their own brief comments. But I also see value in working with the other Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committees (SOAC) & GNSO Stakeholder groups (SG). Given that the NCSG has not prepared its own comment, and has been working with the rest of SOAC & SGs this far on statements, not doing so now is probably a political statement we don't want to make. We should probably join the rest of them in this too. As time runs out today/tomorrow, I think we should sign on. avri On 26-Sep-14 07:39, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > lets go back to some basics here, > Keith from registries stakeholder group shared the statement and asked > if we can have a joint statement between all ICANN groups. we have > such document to review, to comment and suggesting concrete and specific tweaks. > We are in consultation mode and see how we can go from there since no > decision was discussed or made. nobody said that we will endorse it in > the next 2 hours!! > > I think there is enough understanding that consultation within > different groups takes time and need to be done properly. lets focus > in substance and found if there is any point we disagree with in the > statement and tell other ICANN groups. > > Rafik > > 2014-09-26 18:15 GMT+09:00 Adam <[log in to unmask]>: > >> On Sep 26, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>> Well this isn't a departure from what we said a month ago and a >>> month >> before that. >> >> >> It's a new statement. >> >> Adam >> >> >>> Nothing new here that we haven't already gone over to exhaustion >> before. Do you have any issues with the substance of the statement >> (which raises concerns NCSG raised over a month ago)? >>> >>> If you have suggestions for edits, bring them forward. Don't >>> presume we >> can't and should just walk away. >>> >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Adam wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Bill, >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:41 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Adam >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> My feeling is it's not appropriate for NCUC/NCSG to endorse >> statements it has not had the opportunity to review, comment on, etc. >>>>> >>>>> Fair point as stated…so looking at the document, do you see >>>>> anything >> that is perhaps overly reflective of commercial actors’ >> particularistic interests, insufficiently attentive to >> noncommercials’ interests, or otherwise of concern? If so, we could >> take it up with Keith and others and ask for tweaks before signing >> on. If not, wouldn’t it make sense to sign on? >>>> >>>> >>>> Do you agree with everything in the statement and think we should sign? >>>> >>>> 36 hours is an adequate constituency review period, a fair >> interpretation of the NCUC and NCSG charters? >>>> >>>> We (our leaders...) asked for a 21day comment period, and the first >>>> we >> hear of a comment is with less than two days left. My concern is not >> with what other constituencies say, but with NCUC/NCSG process, which >> seems lacking. >>>> >>>> Thanks for you efforts to make the SO/AC more transparent. >>>> Appreciated, >> shame it seems to be such a battle, but thanks. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the SO/AC list archive now open? Could we have the address. >>>>> >>>>> I asked again on the last call, Olivier of ALAC supported, nobody >>>>> else >> commented, so it’s not clear if staff think they have a mandate. >>>>> >>>>> As noted previously, the transcripts and recordings of the monthly >> SO/AC/SG chair meetings are available (Confluence account needed) at >>>>> >> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=soaceinputfdback&title=Event+Calendar. >> They are supposed to be coordination and info sharing discussions, >> not an off-the-books decision making channel, but if there are >> concerns about this then let’s suggest a process, or at least define >> one for our side. The below exchange from the last call may be of interest in this context. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> ------- >>>>> >>>>> Bill Drake: >>>>> >>>>> No worries, David. Just briefly, Fadi, I'm sure we all appreciate >>>>> the >> intention of what you’ve just said, and the spirit of it, it's very >> much welcome, I think it is definitely the case that more often >> dialogue and opportunities to communicate frankly with each other, >> about possible misperceptions and the accumulated understandings >> would be really, really constructive. And this mechanism that you are >> suggesting sounds like it could be useful. >>>>> >>>>> But one thing I want to point out, this is just perhaps, maybe, >> particularly an issue for me coming from the noncommercial side of things. >> There are some concern, I think, amongst some people in the community >> about the whole process of having this kind of shares-based >> [chairs-based] way of interacting, and we haven’t even figured out, I >> think, ourselves how -- what the rules of the game are in some >> respects, with regard to how do other people in the community >> participate? What is the understanding as to what we can decide or >> tell you, and so on, what kind of internal coordination does each >> group do within its group of -- with each Chair, with each group before we have these discussions, and so on. >>>>> >>>>> It's getting a little bit complicated, so I think we have to, >>>>> maybe, >> sort out a little bit how we approach this, if we are going to >> continue with this mechanism. And I would say that if you are going >> to do these roundtables, which is, as I say, a constructive idea, we >> might want to consider, perhaps, including other people sometime, as >> well, not just Chairs, because if people -- we have a little bit of >> an issue already, with the fact that the SO/AC their own list is now >> publicly archived; a lot of people were asking me what's going on in >> this group. It's not transparent, what is this whole new channel >> that's been created for decision-making, how does that fit with >> bottom-up spirit? So, I hope we sort that out, and I hope we can maybe involve other more directly in the process too. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Fadi Chehadé: >>>>> >>>>> That's fair, Bill, and I look to your guidance. Just give me >>>>> guidance, >> tell me what would work. I mean, clearly we can, obviously share with >> people that there are no decisions being made in these meetings, and >> maybe before you come to these roundtables, given that they've >> elected you to certain roles. Maybe you could seek input from them. >> Say, what is it you want us to tell Fadi and his staff to improve, so >> this becomes -- and then we will have a running list of things, and >> we can leave these things completely transparent, and transcribed. >> Whatever will height -- certainly we could have roundtables with, >> say, I don't know, 100 people, but I just think the dynamic will be different. >>>>> >>>>> Ability to be brutally frank and say, look, Fadi, this is a mess, >>>>> and >> you need to work on it. I just need you to be comfortable doing this. >> So guide me, I'm very open, and I just to find a way, frankly, to >> avoid finding ourselves with the gulf that happened culminating in >> Istanbul, which is, if we had not all stepped back away from that >> abyss, frankly we would have been in a not very good place, certainly (inaudible) all of us. >> And I thank each one of you for the wisdom that you have displayed >> and you’ve come to me with. And look, we are just not in a good >> place. We are not hearing each other. >>>>> >>>>> We don't need to get to that point again on many issues ahead of >>>>> us, >> so I'm trying to find a mechanism to ensure we perform without these >> gulfs happening. And any suggestion, I'm open, and I'm committed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 to Norbert's view. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26 Sep 2014 04:03, "Norbert Klein" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>>>> If NCSG is the only one not yet signed, and as it seems in line >>>>>>> with >> our concern, I suggest that we do not try to make changes, but join >> all the others with the present text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Norbert Klein >>>>>>> Cambodia >>>>>>> >>>>>>> = >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/26/2014 9:58 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >>>>>>> Actually, the stmt is being signed by the Registry Stakeholder >> Group, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, the Business Constituency, >> the IP Constituency, and the ISP Constituency. So NCSG is the only >> other part of the GNSO. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Robin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Adam wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for passing this along, Rafik. I think this draft cross >> community submission is great and addresses many of the concerns we >> had previously raised with ICANN's current accountability plan. It >> also proposes a few concrete suggestions for improving this process. >> I hope NCSG will endorse this cross community statement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robin, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the statement's from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) not >> cross constituency. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is there support from others as well? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Robin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's >>>>>>> Enhancing >> ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments >>>>>>> Date: September 25, 2014 7:09:46 AM PDT >>>>>>> To: NCSG-Policy <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you find attached the comment from registries SG for the >> accountability public comment and they are proposing several >> recommendations >>>>>>> Keith their representative is asking if we would like to develop >>>>>>> a >> joint SO/AC/SG statement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> <ICANN RySG Accountability Response v10 23 2014 Clean.docx> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>> [log in to unmask] >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *********************************************** >>>>> William J. Drake >>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, >>>>> Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, >>>>> www.ncuc.org [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] >>>>> (lists), www.williamdrake.org >>>>> *********************************************** >>>> >>> >> >