Fully agree with both of you. On 26/05/2016, 22:04, "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote: >+1 Mathew > >I was really surprised how the day previous to the Helsinki meeting has >suddenly become the official Kick-off meeting of the WS2, all under the >same team as WS1, without any discussion about it. I don’t think we >have another Council meeting before Helsinki, but we should consider >discussing it in the Council list ASAP, instead of waiting for >Hyderabad. > >best regards > >Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez >+506 8837 7176 >Skype: carlos.raulg >Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) >On 26 May 2016, at 14:56, Matthew Shears wrote: > >> + 1 James >> >> But I think this raises an interesting question that's going to become >> more pressing post transition - which is how fast and how well >> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC can get up to speed in terms of not only their/our >> respective responsibilities with regard being part of the EC, but also >> in terms of what our views should be on WS2 - which at the moment is a >> hodge podge of issue areas that everyone is reading into. While >> Helsinki is seemingly impossible to find time at for this type of >> important discussion - which shows how unhelpful this new structure is >> - perhaps we can find time to do a deep dive into these two matters in >> Hyderabad. >> >> Matthew >> >> >> On 5/26/2016 8:12 PM, James Gannon wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman >>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>> Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>> Date: Thursday 26 May 2016 at 19:15 >>> To: "[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" >>> <[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>> Subject: Re: great opening statement by Brett >>> >>> All, >>> >>> I think the nuances of the concerns are being missed. There is >>> something much, much more than the mere transition of the US >>> Government out of its current role. As Avri pointed out earlier >>> today: "This was linked to improvements in ICANN accountability. >>> We fought for that and got it. Upfront we agreed to this process >>> be divided into two parts." >>> >>> I think everyone agrees with the transition -- Bret certainly >>> said >>> he did at the hearing. But it is those improvements of ICANN >>> Accountability that people are questioning. Are they fair? Are >>> they balanced? Are they understood by all who will be impacted by >>> them >>> >>> JG: This was a process of two years produced in an open and inclusive >>> manner for everyone who wanted to be at the table, everyone had their >>> chance for input, for assessment for including the views of their >>> stakeholders, I contend that yes everyone who is impacted by these >>> changes has been engaged with. >>> >>> I have to tell you I am concerned because there seem to be a lot >>> of "gotchas" -- meaning every time I hear someone testify about >>> the details of the Accountability & Transition plan, someone else >>> (involved with the process) says that he/she/it did not >>> understand >>> it that way. There was certainly a lot of last minute changes and >>> maneuvering. There is not, frankly, a lot of knowledge or >>> understanding about the details of how this restructuring and >>> reorganization is going to work. >>> >>> JG: I disagree with this, we have a comprehensive plan, with a large >>> amount of detail, to a level that shows the details needed to >>> understand. If people do not wish to read the proposal and gain >>> understanding then I don’t feel that they have the ability to sit >>> at the sidelines and criticise. Informed criticism and feedback is >>> welcome, posturing is not. >>> >>> Rather than name-calling, or picture discussion, let's talk about >>> the details (the devil's always there, right). Can a consensus >>> policy really be appealed to an Independent Review Process >>> proceeding by one of the multiple stakeholders involved? Isn't >>> that going to give those stakeholders with the most time and >>> resources a third, fourth and fifth bite at the policies we are >>> negotiating? Isn't that going to undermine our months and years >>> of >>> work in the policy development process and working groups? >>> That's >>> one question that no one has been able to answer for me. >>> >>> JG: Please I encourage everyone to read the proposal, so much >>> misinformation and fear uncertainty and doubt is being spread by >>> certain actors at the moment I really suggest people with concerns go >>> back to the source and stop listening to others who are trying to >>> further an agenda. PDP carveout are in the proposal for exactly that >>> reason. >>> >>> *Annex 2:* >>> Power: 3. Reject changes to Standard Bylaws >>> Threshold to convene: Two SOs/ACs, including the SO that led the PDP >>> that requires the Bylaw change (if any) >>> Threshold to reject: Three support rejection, including the SO that >>> led the PDP that requires the Bylaw change (if any), and no more than >>> one objection >>> >>> *Annex 7:* >>> Challenges the result(s) of a Supporting Organization’s policy >>> development process (PDP) Notwithstanding the foregoing and >>> notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP, >>> no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of an SO’s policy >>> development process (PDP) may be launched without the support of the >>> SO that approved the policy recommendations from the PDP or, in the >>> case of the result(s) of a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) >>> chartered by more than one SO, without the support of the SOs that >>> approved the policy recommendations from that CCWG. >>> >>> Let's talk details - if you help us understand, we'll appreciate >>> it. But this is much more than a transition from USG oversight... >>> >>> >>> >>> Kathy >>> >>> On 5/26/2016 12:26 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>> >>>> *From:*David Post [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >>>> >>>> But that's not the goal, in my eyes. The goal is to create an >>>> institution that can manage these resources in a reasonable way, for >>>> the next [many] years. >>>> >>>> MM: As Avri noted, the goal of the stewardship transition was >>>> to…transition, i.e. get the US govt out of its current role. I am >>>> flabbergasted by the fact that you do not see the US oversight role >>>> as a broken part of the institution. >>>> >>>> MM: As someone who has written about early post-revolutionary >>>> America, I wonder how you would respond to my argument “all these >>>> new democratic government models are new and untested. We don’t >>>> really know how well they will work. Why doesn’t the United States >>>> retain its status as a British colony under the King for a few >>>> years, and let him decide if the experiment has worked?” >>>> >>>> All I'm suggesting is that it would hardly seem unreasonable, to me, >>>> if the USG took the position that while it is signing off on the >>>> transition, it is doing so subject to a kind of probationary period >>>> that will enable us all to understand better whether and how it >>>> actually works. Perhaps other countries will view that as a terribly >>>> untrustworthy move, perhaps they won't - I do think it helps that it >>>> is, fundamentally, quite a reasonable position to take. >>>> >>>> MM: So you assume that the USG is NOT part of the machine, it is a >>>> deus ex machina that we can invoke at any time to insert an entirely >>>> rational, undistorted corrective action on whatever happens? >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights >> Project >> Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org >> E: [log in to unmask] | T: +44.771.247.2987