Great suggestion Avri. Let's start the discussion. 2016-05-27 9:22 GMT+02:00 Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]>: > Good suggestion, Avri. > Let's get some strategy on Work Stream 2 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > > avri doria > > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:29 PM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: how do we move forward was Re: [] great opening ... > > > > 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]" <NCSG- > > [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 >