+ 1 Niels - just sent out a similar note.
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">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