+ 1 Niels - just sent out a similar note. On 5/27/2016 12:59 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Agreed! We've been doing some work in the CCWP HR Sub Group on > Workstream Two as well, happy to also bring that into a discussion. > > Looking forward to discuss! > > Perhaps a webinar / discussion on the 1st, 2nd or 7th of June? > > Best, > > Niels > > On 05/27/2016 10:00 AM, hfaiedh ines wrote: >> Great suggestion Avri. Let's start the discussion. >> >> 2016-05-27 9:22 GMT+02:00 Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of >> > avri doria >> > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:29 PM >> > To: [log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[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]> >> > >> <mailto:[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman >> > >> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> >> > >> Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> > >> <mailto:[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]>" <NCSG- >> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> > >> <mailto:[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] >> <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 <http://cdt.org> >> > > E: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> | T: >> +44.771.247.2987 <tel:%2B44.771.247.2987> >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > --- >> > 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