HI Bill, hi all, Thanks for making three different threads - very much appreciated that these important questions will not get lost. I think Niels's questions are broader than just addition of the human rights obligation into the bylaws. I am puzzled, too and would really like to get answers. Warm regards Tatiana On 20 August 2016 at 09:55, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > (was: A Few Take-Aways from Meet the Candidates Call re: Council > Transparency and Coordination) > > Hi > > How about we discuss the human rights issue issue under this subject line? > > > I have to admit I that I too was puzzled by what happened in Marrakech on > this, both in real time and after reading the transcript. It would be good > to understand everyones’ views on this crucial issue. > > Thanks > > Bill > > On Aug 19, 2016, at 20:52, Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > Dear all, > > I think Bill and Milton raised very important questions concerning the > work of the GNSO. I would like to ask two more questions based on what > Milton has already asked. > > I read in Ed’s statement about his strong commitment to freedom of > expression. I would like to ask again – after asking this in person, in > a session and in the +1 thread here, because I believe it is important > for us to know: Why did Ed vote, as the only GNSO councilor, against the > addition of a commitment for ICANN to respect human rights to ICANN bylaws? > This is not just about NCSG GNSO councilors, but Ed was only one of ALL > GNSO councilors to vote against the commitment to human rights. > > And furthermore, why did Ed not discuss this openly, before the vote, on > the NCSG list. Because I think the concerns Ed had were not shared > widely within the NCSG, except for Heritage and himself. > > I find it a problem of accountability how Ed continuously seem to not > want to discuss this openly within our constituency, but does vote on > behalf of it. Here I would like to quote the charter again: > > "Each NCSG GNSO Council Representative shall represent, within the GNSO > Council, ICANN and its activities, the goals and priorities of the NCSG > to the best of his/her ability and in accordance with the principle of > consensus building." > > and: > > "Council Representatives will, however, be expected to understand the > varied positions in the NCSG and to explain to the membership how their > votes are in support of noncommercial interests. NCSG GNSO Councilors > should work with the NCSG‑PC to develop NCSG policy positions. NCSG GNSO > Council Representatives are expected to keep the NCSG membership > informed of policy issues before the GNSO Council, to seek input from > the NCSG membership and to be responsive to member requests for > information on matters pending before the Council." > > Last but not least. If you look at the voting history in the GNSO, it is > clear that there is a pattern of Ed structurally making other choices > than the other NCSG GNSO councilors. I do not think this is necessarily > bad, but I do not see any explanation for this reflected in Ed’s statement. > > Best, > > Niels > > > On 08/19/2016 12:57 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > I would like to raise an issue that was completely avoided in our > discussions yesterday. > > > > Probably the biggest issue facing the whole ICANN environment right now > is the IANA transition – the end of US Govt control of the DNS root > zone, and the completion of ICANN’s movement toward self-governance. > > > > My sense is that the overwhelming majority of us in this Stakeholder > Group (NCSG) are in favor of the transition and the accountability > reforms associated with it. None of us thinks they are perfect, of > course, but almost all of us believe that we are better off making those > changes than sticking with the status quo. > > > > There are a few exceptions. It is clear that the Heritage Foundation, > one of our (eligible!) member organization, is working very hard in > Washington to raise obstacles to the transition. It appears to me that > one of our Council members, Ed Morris, has aligned himself with the > Heritage folks in opposing completion of the transition at this time, > though I could be wrong about that. > > > > I think it is perfectly acceptable for there to be different views > within the NCSG. However, it’s also critical for our members to know > what they are voting for, and to have that debate openly. To my mind, a > Council member who actively works against the completion of the > transition has a dramatically different vision of the nature of ICANN > and its long term future than one who wants to move ahead with the > accountability reforms and IANA transition. > > > > Therefore it’s critical for our members to know how all Councilors stand > on this question. > > > > So I’d like to see the candidates answer these questions; > > > > 1. Do you think that if the U.S. Congress blocks the transition in > the next 6 weeks that it will be a disaster for the multistakeholder > model of Internet governance? Why or why not? > > > > 2. Are you actively supporting the Heritage Foundation’s (and > other rightwing groups’) efforts to mobilize Congressional Republicans > to block the transition? > > > > 3. How do you think we as a SG should respond if the transition is > blocked by the U.S. Congress? > > > > > > I look forward to discussion of these questions by the candidates. > > > > > > Dr. Milton L. Mueller > > Professor, School of Public Policy > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of > *William Drake > *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2016 6:04 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > *Subject:* A Few Take-Aways from Meet the Candidates Call re: Council > Transparency and Coordination > > > > Hi > > > > Yesterday’s call provided a useful opportunity for dialogue on the > candidates’ views and priorities and also turned out to offer some folks > a chance to start clearing the air, however uncomfortably, regarding > issues that arose within our Council contingent the last cycle. I’d > like to suggest a couple take-aways in hopes that we can re-set that > which needs to be and move forward on a firmer footing. Purely my own > views, which I guess some folks will disagree with, in which case fine, > let’s talk it out. > > > > 1. Differences of perspective among Councilors are fine but these > should be openly shared in order to preserve trust. It might make sense > for the interested parties to find some congenial space in which to > privately work through past bits of friction that arose re: e.g. > Marrakech, the GNSO chair selection, and whatever else. It doesn’t make > sense to leave misunderstandings unresolved and entrenched as it can > impact on the effectiveness of the team effort going forward. Hyderabad > obviously offers F2F options, which are likely to be the most productive > in coming to resolutions, but it might make sense not to wait entirely > on this. > > > > 2. It would be helpful if Councilors could be sure to attend the monthly > NCSG calls and proactively share their thinking about upcoming Council > meetings and votes with each other and the wider membership. In ancient > times when I was on Council we regarded these as fairly mandatory and > tried to miss only exceptionally and with notification, but more > recently participation seems to have be spottier at times (I believe the > NCSG chair has attendance records?). Yes we’re all volunteers with day > jobs and travels so things can happen, but it shouldn’t be the case that > people miss more than a couple per annual cycle. > > > > 3. In parallel, it’d be good to have greater open discussion of pending > votes and positions on the NCSG PC mail list. I’ve been on that list > since we set it up in 2011 (first as a Councilor, then as an observer) > and think it’s under-utilized resource that should work in synch with > our monthly calls and those of the Council. Of course, issues should > not always be sorted purely on an internal PC basis; important policy > choices at least should also be vetted on ncsg-discuss so the PC is well > informed by a feel for general member sentiment, even if it’s divided. > > > > Either way, between the monthly calls and the PC, we shouldn’t have > cases where members of the team don’t know until they arrive at a > Council meeting how their colleagues will vote, or what contacts and > representations of the group’s shared positions are being made to other > stakeholder groups, etc. You can’t have a team effort if people are > unaware of each others’ doings. > > > > 4. Part of the PC’s challenge has always been to ensure effective > chairing, including tracking of progress on open projects, herding cats, > etc. We’ve always appointed Councilors to chair but the results have > been variable as people are already maxed out. On yesterday’s call Ed > made a suggestion that merits consideration: having a non-Council member > as chair, and allocating one of the NCSG travel slots to this person so > as to promote their continuous coordination of the process. It’d be > interesting to hear views on this. > > > > 5. After-meeting reporting to the membership of the issues and votes > should be routinized. This doesn’t have involve demanding magnum opus > treatments, a couple paragraphs one a month should be sufficient and > doable. I’d suggested (below) that the six Councilors could rotate the > responsibility, as was briefly attempted in 2009-2010. Stephanie > counter-proposed on the call that reporting be done by non-Councilors, > in part as a way of on-boarding ‘new blood’ and helping to prepare folks > to stand for Council in a future election. This could work too, > although it may involve some extra coordination to ensure every > Councilors’ votes and views are reflected to taste. Worth a try… > > > > If we could do at least some of this, I think it’d increase our team’s > solidarity and our general members’ understanding of what their > representative are up to, what’s in play in the GNSO, and what the > opportunities for engaging in working groups and such are. It’d also > make our votes in elections more well informed. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Bill > > > > > > On Aug 17, 2016, at 10:39, William Drake <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>> wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > On Aug 16, 2016, at 23:38, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>> wrote: > > > > Agreed. It is important for members to become more acquainted > with our representatives and resumes are extremely helpful for that. > > > > Sharing candidates’ resumes is not a bad idea. But I’d like to > suggest we go beyond this. Two issue we might want to consider on > tomorrow’s call: > > > > When I joined Council in 2009, we discussed the need for better > reporting to members as to what their reps were actually doing in > Council. We launched an attempt to deal with this by having > Councilors take turns doing brief reports about Council meetings. > Alas it didn’t get far, after a couple times the sense of urgency > faded, people told themselves “well, members can always look at the > Council archive to see what’s happening," and the effort drifted > off. But of course it’s actually not easy for a member to dive > through the Council archive and try to reconstruct what’s happening, > and it’s not so hard to compose a one or two paragraph summary of a > monthly Council meeting indicating how our reps voted on which > issues, especially if the workload is rotated among six Councilors, > making it just a few times per year each. So while it’s a bit > uncomfortable suggesting work to be done by others, I’d like to put > this idea back on the table ahead of our Meet the Candidates call > tomorrow. It need not be an one onerous thing, and after all we > exist to participate in the GNSO, so surely we should be able to > know how our reps are representing us in the GNSO. Especially when > we’re being asked to vote them into ‘office’ (for incumbents) on the > basis of past performance. > > > > More generally, we have long debated the matter of coordination > among Council reps. Unlike most if not all other parts of the GNSO, > NCSG by charter doesn’t normally do ‘directed voting,’ where the > members are bound to vote in conformity with a rough consensus > position. We have a charter provision to do this in exceptional > cases, but I don’t recall it ever being invoked. We’ve always been > content to operate on the notion that the Councilor does what s/he > thinks is in the best interest of civil society @ GNSO, and if > members don’t approve of anyone’s action they can vote them out in > the next cycle. But as that has not really happened, it’s sort of a > meaningless check and balance. And this is not without consequence, > as we’ve sometimes had internal differences within our contingent > that have arguably undermined our effectiveness and credibility in > the eyes of the community and staff, and can even allow our various > business stakeholder group counterparts to exploit the differences > in order to push through what they want in opposition to our common > baseline views. So at a minimum, we need to do better somehow at > team coordination and make sure all our Councilors know what each > other is doing and why and so there’s no real time surprises, > especially during meetings with high stakes votes. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Best > > > > Bill > > > > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > > > ************************************************************* > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary Reflections* > New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC > ************************************************************* > >