+ 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