+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