I’d be happy to participate in a prep meeting/webinar. -JG On 27/05/2016, 07:57, "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Klaus Stoll" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote: >Hi, > >I think Avri is right and we should start the discussion now., in >particular regarding WS2. The only point I would like to make here is >also that we should have some kind of agenda or issues list to follow. >Otherwise we might get lost in the forest. > >Yours > >Klaus > >On 5/26/2016 5:28 PM, avri doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Should we be able to work on stuff on list and in other environments >> online in the meantime? >> >> I think it would be good to talk about WS2 in NCSG before the one day >> meeting in Helsinki some of us are hoping to get to by hook or by crook >> (or will be there in remote in any case). Maybe a good time for our PC >> to plan a webinar/discussion? Or maybe even a NCSG involvement campaign. >> >> avri >> >> On 26-May-16 16:56, 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]" <[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 >>> >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>