+ 1 Rafik On 22/08/2016 01:04, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > we constantly advocate for long time for Human Right dimension at > policy development in ICANN in generic names and we made a lot of > progress in the last years that really surprises me when I recall > reactions about the topic in council till I left just 4 years. > > The inclusion in the bylaws can be seen as a success. I may understand > the concerns of some regarding how that can be interpreted by other, > if it has any unintended consequences or if the language is enough > satisfactory but I don't see how that can be a blocking issue nor that > we should take a conservative position toward statu quo. > > we can and we are working on defining safeguards to mitigate the > risks, via the framework of interpretation in the workstream 2 and the > Human Rights subgroup. we need to keep our commitment there with all > NCSG volunteers. > > we know by experience that we have to fight and work for the long run > and that the inclusion is just a stepping stone for more work to come. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2016-08-20 16:55 GMT+09:00 William Drake <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>: > > (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] >> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of >>> *William Drake >>> *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2016 6:04 AM >>> *To:* [log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[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]> >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 23:38, Robin Gross >>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[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 <http://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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists), > www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org> > /The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th > Anniversary Reflections/ > New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC > ************************************************************* > > -- -------------- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987