Hi Shane, I certainly did not mean to imply that we are not members of the ICANN community, because ICANN is a community-driven organisation, but our responsibilities as community members are different to those of staff or of the Board. In the context of this conversation, I was referring to the concrete steps that ICANN as an organisation (which I see primarily as an administrative function, facilitating meetings in a safe manner, organising working groups and supporting the Board, among other tasks) had taken in addressing the concerns raised initially by ICANN the community (which, of course, includes us, where we perform activities on a voluntary basis and form decisions by consensus) during ICANN 55 and after the meeting in various listservs, as requested by the Board. So clearly we've led the process, staff have helped where appropriate, and the Board has supported the community. In my view, ICANN as an organisation has been very responsive to the concerns raised by ICANN the community where we expected staff or Board action. That is why I suggested that in our response to this consultation activity that we praise the Board in the strongest terms for making, as a matter of priority, revisions to the Expected Standards of Behaviour, but ask that we be given more time as a community to think about what changes we really want to see. Does this offer more clarity around my remarks? I'm happy to dialogue further off-list if some confusion remains. Best wishes, Ayden On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 4:49 AM, Shane Kerr [log in to unmask] wrote: Fellow NCSG members, One thing that I had previously missed caught my eye just now: At 2016-06-07 14:07:25 +0200 Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 06/03/2016 08:13 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: ... > > it isn't. It is possibly one of community culture, but if we accept > > that, we can't just push this back to ICANN to somehow deal with. I > > don't want a return to the Victorian moral panic of the 1880s, I don't > > want ICANN inhibiting anyone's free speech to satisfy a few special > > interests. ... > > Helsinki. If anything, I feel like WE are more at fault here than ICANN > > as an organisation is. WE are not respecting the processes already in ... > > ICANN has been very responsive to the concerns raised by the community, All of these statements share a similar tone: ICANN is something that we interact with, but we are not a part of ICANN. Perhaps I am confused, because I come from the IETF and RIR communities, which allow anyone to join and participate. While there is a distinction between the ARIN community and the ARIN not-for-profit company (for example) or the IETF and the IAB (as another example), for the most part direction comes from the wider, open community. You know, in a kind of bottom-up, open, inclusive way. So... if this is not how ICANN works, then I feel like the ICANN experiment has gone off the rails and is in serious danger of failing completely. If “ICANN” is something different from, well, us, then what is it? Are we not ICANN? Cheers, -- Shane