+ 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