Great idea.
So attaching the ppt sent out by Bernie in prep for ICANN Helsinki Sunday all day WS2 session.
These are the WS2 areas:
Human Rights
Jurisdiction
SO/AC Accountability
Ombudsman
Transparency
Staff Accountability
Guidelines for standards of conduct presumed to be in good faith associated with exercising removal of individual ICANN Board Directors
Reviewing the CEP (as set forth in Section 4.3); and additional topic carried over from WS1- IRP “phase 2”
While it seems that staff will be circulating a google form
survey to assess where folks may want to engage, it would be good
to get a sense as to who might be interested in what. Also, if
there are any hardy souls who wish to step forward to be
considered as DT leads, they should indicate so. The process for
selection of DT leads is unclear.
Ideally we would have representation in the DTs that has issue
expertise and preferably CCWG experience, as well as a willingness
to "get stuck in" and draft.
Perhaps we could have a call in the two weeks to kick start the conversation. I know that there has been quite a bit of prep work done in the CCWP HR. Perhaps we can identify issue leaders for the call who can review/update the participants on the scope of the WS2 issues and propose approaches we might want to take?
Matthew
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">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 arenegotiating? 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
-- 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