/William Drake wrote:/ On 3) ..."It also ties directly to a debate that both Fadi and some board members have been starting in various contexts, particularly the SO-AC-SG chairs space, about “trust” and the weaknesses thereof revealed in the accountability process. Having a frank and open discussion of this would be useful" I think in this case it would also be good to "to specify exactly which outcomes on non-outcomes to date we have a concern about, otherwise we could get sort of generic answers back about how of course they are following the process blah blah blah" (as On 2) below. Maybe stating here a reference to the response by Fadi Chehade and Stephen Crocker (in response to the stakeholder leader's letter /"Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance"/ to Fadi Chehade and the Board) if a substantial number of NCSG colleagues also feel that their response was not an appropriate answer to the serious questions raised. That is what I feel - it has not raised my "trust". And NOT raising this frankly and specifically may result in loosing a unique opportunity for an open discussion with the board. Norbert Klein Cambodia On 9/23/2014 1:26 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Sep 22, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> as usual we will have 1 hour meeting with the board and they need >> topics we want to discuss in advance. >> can you please share what you think we should discuss with them. >> Please write a brief introduction of the topic you want to suggest. >> >> as starter I think we have those proposed by Avri : >> >> 1. Human Rights considerations at ICANN >> 2. Discussion on outcomes to date from the ATRT2 report >> 3. What does multistakeholder bottom-up process mean at ICANN (this >> may be related to one there on essence of ICANN.) >> > > Works for me. > > On 1) there will be further discussion of the COE paper and HR issues > at NCUC’s Constituency Day meeting and there’s talk of trying to also > organize a cross-community meeting of some sort Wednesday, but I’m not > sure whether the latter will pan out in the time available. It’d be > useful to engage the board in the discussion. > > On 2) it might be good to specify exactly which outcomes on > non-outcomes to date we have a concern about, otherwise we could get > sort of generic answers back about how of course they are following > the process blah blah blah. > > On 3) I think this is important because there’ve been comments from > ICANN leadership about what does bottom up really mean, how important > is it, isn’t it just a drag on the quick decision making needed, it’s > not in the bylaws, etc., which is a bit worrying. * It also ties > directly to a debate that both Fadi and some board members have been > starting in various contexts, particularly the SO-AC-SG chairs space, > about “trust” and the weaknesses thereof revealed in the > accountability process*. Having a frank and open discussion of this > would be useful, it’s on a lot of minds and I imagine the board will > have parallel sorts of discussions with other groupings that day. > > In terms of priority and time allocation I’d argue for 3 1 2 but > others may have different preferences. Hopefully we don’t compress 3) > too much or we’ll get stock answers rather than probing dialogue. > > Bill > > >