Hi Ed, Just for the future in our candidates and representatives I would really prefer if we can stick to facts and details and not pull on emotional heartstrings with personal stories. If people choose to serve then it should be on the basis of their professional ability to do work in the space, to be blunt I feel it's unprofessional to bring your personal situation into responses such as this. Milton reflected accurately the views of a number of us as indicated in the follow-up mails that we had concerns over your at times rogue positions that did not reflect the position of the majority of the NCSG so please don't attempt to minimize the questions from the members your asking to vote for you by placing these questions in the category of political tools, indeed as you well know one of the key markers for push polling is that its not clear and obvious what its trying to do, I suggest that Miltons questions were direct and if they were not I will clarify that for my support I was attempting to ensure that in your potential upcoming term we will not have a rogue councilor on critical issues such as the transition that many of us have worked on. Its unfortunate that you chose not to respond to this clearly and concisely with definitive responses but with a rambling distracting personal letter to the world. For our many academic members who don't have time to read this could I ask that we get direct responses to the 3 questions as proposed by Milton, simple clear and unambiguous responses if you could. 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? Regards, James From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward Morris Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 10:45 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Views on the IANA Transition Hi Milton, I'm not sure how many of our Members know about push polling. It's a device we use in political campaigns where we pretend to be contacting voters for a poll but then add in a statement about a candidate designed to influence the voter. For example, a robocall might ask you if you support Rodrigo or Helen in an election, take your response, and then ask you if you knew that Rodrigo was, for example, a corrupt pedophile and wife beater. You would then be asked that, knowing this, whether you now supported Rodrigo or Helen. It's a tricky way to try to influence the voter without the voter being aware it is being done. I'm bringing it up here, Milton, because, unintentionally I'm sure, one of our Members reading your post in a rushed fashion could get the impression that the transition is in danger of collapsing because of Republican pressure that I support. In fact, some have already made that mistake. For good reason, Milton - you mentioned it as a possibility, although fortunately admitting you weren't sure. I wish you had asked me straight up about my views on the transition in one of the nine emails we exchanged with each other on other matters during the last two weeks. I could have cleared up any confusion you may have had. No big - thoughts like that, of course, are in no way true but just to ensure that folks don't get confused I'd like to clarify things for Members that don't know me or the situation perhaps as well as you do or should. I'll then try to answer your questions. First, the transition will take place, as scheduled, on October 1st. Milton is aware of this as I sent him a courtesy e-mail on August 16th explaining that I had information indicating that Republican plans to stop the transition on the basis of the property argument had been abandoned. There might be some small move to delay matters but they would fail. Although I did not tell Milton the locus of my information, it was obtained from three different sources: two Democratic Congressional offices and a non-partisan think tank. This transition will take place as scheduled, barring some unexpected cataclysmic event. As a Member you might ask what I'm doing talking to Congressional staff members. In the early days of the CCWG I pushed the group to hire Cam Kerry, brother of Secretary of State John Kerry, to serve as a political adviser for the CCWG. I failed, the initiative losing by a single vote. Cam works for Sidley, one of the CCWG's law firms, and is someone I've known and respected for over two decades. The CCWG has a number of fine Washington lobbyists as members, however they all are Republican in orientation. I've tried to fill the gap by talking on occasion to friends on the staffs of Democratic Senator Edward Markey and Democratic Representative Raul Grijalva, chair of the House Progressive caucus, to get from a Democratic perspective a sense of the current status of the transition on Capitol Hill. I'm well positioned to do so, having previously worked for Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy and Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Frankly, I didn't get a lot of useful information but when I got anything of even small value I'd pass it on to the tri-chairs of the CCWG to help them with their decision-making. I'd also, on occasion, pass it on to other interested parties, such as I did last week with Milton. So, please don't be confused by Mllton's hypothetical questions. The transition will take place as scheduled. Second, the thought that I oppose the transition would be comical if it weren't so tragic. I doubt that anyone in this community has paid the personal price I have paid to try to make the transition happen. My engagement to be married fell apart last year, in large part because I spent so much time on the CCWG that I neglected my fiancé. My finances are dreadful; I've exhausted my savings and have faced eviction proceedings four times in the past two years. In fact, on July 29th I won a case in the Court of Appeal that, had I lost, would have seen me facing homelessness, needing to find a new place to live right about now. I'm currently working as many hours as I can to stay above water. I'd suggest it would be pretty stupid to makes these sacrifices if my goal was to sink the transition. Although there has been great help from so many of our members, much appreciated, only two other NCSG members - Robin Gross and Avri Doria - have put in the hours I have on this project. Robin, as our Member, and Avri, as the ATRT expert, receive ICANN travel support and have status in this effort. I do not. Yet by virtue of my active participation in so many CCWG related work groups (18 subteams plus the plenary) I've become part of the leadership of the Accountability working group. I am the only member of the CCWG to have been appointed by CCWG leadership to serve, at different times, as rapporteur for two subgroups. I'm currently the only member of the CCWG to serve in two leadership positions in work stream 2: as rapporteur for the CEP subgroup and as one of six members of the Legal Executive. As Milton has written, this transition proposal is not perfect. To make it better one might occasionally take positions that might in a vacuum seem unsupportive, but I doubt any one seriously involved in the CCWG doubts my commitment to getting this done. Leaders of movements and projects generally support them becoming reality. (I can't wait to file the first Inspection request in history - to see what I worked so hard to get for the community actually happen is going to be a blast!). (Even more fun will be litigating our first IRP against ICANN! I so much wanted to take our Trademark 50 case to an IRP but under the old system we couldn't afford it. With the reforms we've made now we can!) As far as the impression a quick read of Milton's post could give that I'm a Republican, am working with Republicans or anything of the sort: that sound you heard coming from Massachusetts are my dead relatives rolling over in their graves at the thought. My great-grandfather, whom I'm named after, was the first Catholic ever elected to the Massachusetts State Senate. A Democrat, his portrait is featured in the Senate chamber. From my days as regional director of College Democrats of America, to my work on the Kennedy, Mondale, Brown, Dukakis, Kerry, and most recently, O'Malley presidential campaigns: I have never voted for a Republican, will never vote for a Republican, and this autumn will be working full time to elect a Democrat to the United States House of Representatives from Arizona's second Congressional district. It is said that a Southern "yellow dog" Democrat will vote for a male Democratic candidate for office unless he is found in bed with a "dead girl or a live pre-teen boy". To which, I simply respond "stuff happens". In Massachusetts you really aren't a Democrat until you've voted for someone sitting in jail or about to be sent there. : ) To think I would be supporting Republican anything... Over the weekend a few Members have contacted me after reading Milton's post writing "I didn't know you were against the transition" or "I didn't know you were a Republican". Having focused my life the past two years on making this transition happen, and having spent my entire life following in my great grandpa's footsteps as a proud Democrat...I wanted to set the record straight. I guess the next thing that will be questioned is my loyalty to the greatest sports franchise in history, the Boston Celtics. That's pretty much all that is left to question me about things that I value. Thanks for your patience. Onto the 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? I find little in life is a disaster. We face challenges all of the time but I view them more as bumps in the journey of life that, in the true tradition of the internet, merely needs to be routed around. Of course, as noted above, Congress is not going to block the transition in the next 6 weeks. Guaranteed. The transition is going to happen on October 1st as scheduled. If hell freezes over and England becomes a sunny tropical paradise within the next six weeks...and the US Congress blocks the transition...it would not be good. As far as how non good, that would depend upon how Congress rejects the transition. If a full vote of either chamber rejected the transition that would be really, really not good. It simply is not going to happen. The Republican leadership won't allow such a vote because the transition proposal would easily pass both the House and the Senate and they know it. The likely way to block the transition would be to attach a rider to an unrelated bill that would delay the transition but not stop it in it's entirety. There was a time when I found that idea attractive, to keep the Board honest in implementing WS2, but in recent weeks I've been working with Board members on WS2 and believe that safeguard is no longer necessary. You can not underestimate the influence Becky Burr has had on the Board in her short time there. She is a superstar. If a rider happened that delayed the transition it wouldn't be good. How not good depends upon who put it there, the support it had overall in Congress and a lot of other factors. Again, it may be threatened and attempted but it simply is not going to happen. Right now the transition faces three acknowledged and alleged semi-threats from Congress: Protecting Internet Freedom Act: this proposal co-sponsored by Ted Cruz would 1) force the administration to obtain Congressional approval before nonrenewal or transfer of the IANA contract and 2) gives the US government the .gov and .mil domains in perpetuity. This Act has absolutely no chance of becoming law. Breach of the Appropriations Rider: The NTIA was prohibited by Congress from spending money on the tradition. The fact is it has. The remedy in such matters would not be blockage of the transition but rather more generally impeachment of the Executive. Barack Obama will not be impeached over this issue. (There are, of course, other possible remedies but none would impact the lapsing of the IANA contract). Request to have Department of Justice investigate the extension of the Verisign contract: Senator Cruz etc. have asked for the transition to be stopped pending consideration of competition law effect of an early six year renewal of the Verisign cintract. I actually have some sympathy for the Cruz view on this matter, but I don't agree it should impact the transition in any meaningful way. It won't. If something unexpected did happen, and I'm sure folks are plotting as we speak, and Congress blocks and delays the transition in the next six weeks: it would be bad but because we will figure a way around that little bump and make it happen anyway it would not be a disaster. The transition is going to happen. 2. Are you actively supporting the Heritage Foundation's (and other rightwing groups') efforts to mobilize Congressional Republicans to block the transition? Milton, at a Congressional hearing a few months ago Brett Schaefer took an oath to tell the truth and proceeded to say "I support the transition". He has already responded to this post by writing "we are not opposed to the transition". If you any have information to the contrary, or if I'm not understanding something, I hope you'll let all of us know. Not only because it would be useful for understanding policy perspectives, but if Brett has lied to Congress, me and you, as a fellow Catholic I'll need to get him to confession right away! I believe Brett to be an honorable man and take him at his word. I should note that there seems to be an effort to tie me to the Heritage world view. Laughable. As Brett has accurately posted "I am surprised you are saying Ed is "aligned" with Heritage. I agree with Ed on some of his concerns with the transition, but we have significant policy differences as well". Milton, you as well best be careful as I note you've actually co-authored a blog post about the transition in Real Clear Policy with Heritage's Paul Rosenzweig: (http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/10/14/icann_internet_governance_transition_hijacked_1443.html ) . The red H of Heritage may soon be applied to you. It does appear that Hawthorne was quite prescient in these things. I'm happy to answer your question but for the sake of unchallenged accuracy let's leave Heritage out of it and insert TechFreedom, a libertarian think tank that is, in fact, trying to stop the transition, as a substitute for Heritage in your hypothetical. No, I do not support TechFreedom's, or any other groups, right wing or left wing, efforts, actively or passively, to mobilize Congressional Republicans, or any other group, to stop the transition. However, I have actively supported, in the real world and not just in theory, Business Constituency member Steve DelBianco's efforts to gain Congressional support for the transition ( I have even resorted to sending Steve messages in the middle of his Congressional testimony!) and I will continue to monitor Democratic opinion and if I detect anything but complete support will notify folks in the CCWG so corrective action may be taken. 3. How do you think we as a SG should respond if the transition is blocked by the U.S. Congress? Again, the transition is not going to be blocked by the US Congress. Our hypothetical reaction should depend upon why, how, by whom and with what support the blockage occurred. Milton, if you'd like to construct some hypotheticals with specifics I'd be happy to respond. This isn't school, I'm not your student and any response I give may have real world implications should unexpectedly the transition get blocked as you have postulated above. It really depends upon the specifics of the block as to how we respond. It would be irresponsible for me to respond in general terms because I wouldn't want to be linked to a specific response should the unthinkable happen, as actual events may dictate a different response than one I would propose in general terms now. If you do want to put together some scenarios, Milton, please be as specific as possible, including names of Congress people involved, vote totals, the official ICANN reaction and the reaction of the NTIA and Obama administration to the blockage. I'd then be very happy to recommend a course of action, if any, for the NCSG. In lieu of giving you a complete answer to a question I don't feel gives me enough data with which to responsibly respond, let me tell you the real problem with the approach the NTIA is taking to the transition, the real dangers and what we as a stakeholder group can do in a small way to help this transition become reality. Although a Democrat, I'm not a big fan of the Obama administration, their approach to Congressional relations nor their strategy for completing the transition. While I'm in favour of a hard transition, the administration appears to have chosen a softer approach that comes with it the danger of post transition recapture by the United States government. To be fair, the NTIA may have had little choice in the matter: Congress has largely tied their hands with budgetary restrictions. The pivotal question is whether US government assets are involved in the transition. If it is, then Congressional approval is needed for the transition. If not, then Congress has no say in the matter. Although there are those with strong opinions in this matter either way, the plain truth is that we don't know legally whether property is or is not involved in the transition. In the recent Weinstein decision the DC Circuit Court chose not to consider, for example, whether cctld's are property. A request that the GAO determine whether or not US government assets are involved in the transition is not expected to be completed before the transition date of October 1st. Larry Strickling has indicated that the NTIA intends to let the current contract expire on September 30th. I hope he does more than that. My fear: 1. President Trump will simply issue a request for tender for a new contract. The mere fact that the contract expires does not mean a new contract could not be tendered and awarded after a lapse in time. ICANN obviously could protest and go to court. Would it? Probably not if it wanted to be awarded the contract. This would be a real challenge for our community; 2. Third parties, with perhaps some Congressional support, could find standing to challenge the transition on grounds of the property argument, standing being granted before the court on the basis of injury resulting from the transfer. This case would be so unique there is no way of knowing the outcome. These are the dangers of a soft transition. It can be easily challenged post transition, with ultimate control reverting back to the United States government in certain cases. The ideal would be a hard transition, property being recognized and Congress signing off on the deal. That may not be possible due to the highly political nature of everything in Washington these days. Hopefully the NTIA will find a way to signal in concrete terms it's legal authority and intention to transition ICANN away from US government oversight, something more than mere contract nonrenewal. In any case, expect lawsuits and a bit of uncertainty after the transition occurs. In the United States much public policy is made through court action or inaction. I fully expect that will happen here. As a Stakeholder Group, following the transition the best way to secure it permanently is to act and function as if it has occurred and is not subject to challenge. Work with us to finish work stream two, let's get as many people as possible in the working groups (in an SG of 500+ people how can it be that often there are only two of us in the RPM working group meetings?) ...if we just start making the transition work, the political salience will drop and independence will be achieved. Thanks for reading. I'm sorry for the length but I was the only Councilor mentioned in Milton's post and his comments could be perceived in a way that just isn't true. I'm quite sure there was no ill intent there. What I'm sadly discovering is that if you just sit here, follow the crowd, do a little, blend in, things are pretty easy. When you lead, challenge, provoke and think independently you become a target or, at least, subject to being misunderstood. So be it. As we get closer to the transition, there are three people I hope we as a Stakeholder Group will find a way to acknowledge and thanks. Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez and Mathieu Weill have done an amazing job as tri-chairs of the CCWG and when this is all over we need to make sure they know how much we appreciate all that they have done. Some of us have sacrificed a lot to make this happen but these three men - all with small children at home - have sacrificed their entire lives for two years. They are heroes to the multi-stakeholder movement - or should be. Let's make sure they know it! Kind Regards, Ed Morris From: "Mueller, Milton L" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 6:58 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: A Few Take-Aways from Meet the Candidates Call re: Council Transparency and Coordination 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: "Rafik Dammak" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 12:55 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Views on the IANA Transition Hi, I would like to remind that I am in favor of the transition since the process started in 2014 and as NCSG chair at that time (till last Octover) I did my best to support our volunteers involved in the 2 cross-community working group. I remain consistently supporting the transition. to respond to Milton 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? it will be definitely bad and playing for the narrative/myth spread by some countries about US government "controlling the internet", that multistakeholder model is not working and that everything should go under the UN space. US congress involvement seems more about internal politics and against Obama government than anything else, and can be hardly supported by those outside US except those who will benefit from the failure of transition. 2. Are you actively supporting the Heritage Foundation's (and other rightwing groups') efforts to mobilize Congressional Republicans to block the transition? well, definitely not: first not being an US national , not having any involvement in any effort on that sense nor having any connection to the Washignton DC sphere. 3. How do you think we as a SG should respond if the transition is blocked by the U.S. Congress? I do think that NCSG must take a strong position and being more vocal in particular outside ICANN , working and liaising with other NCSG members who did so. An aborted transition will have unknown consequences not just in Internet Governance space but can touch indirectly Cybersecurity. finally, if I can add a small comment. we got a proposal that has consensus while some may be unsatisfied with some details, but as they say PErfect is the enemy of good. Best, Rafik 2016-08-20 16:58 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 IANA transition issue issue under this subject line? I have to admit I that I too am puzzled by the disparate positions taken on this key issue, as in my experience civil society has been uniformly in favor in of the transition for at least a decade in multiple settings (e.g. ICANN, IGF, WSIS). It would be good to understand everyones' views on this crucial issue. Thanks Bill On Aug 19, 2016, at 19:57, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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]] 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]>> wrote: Hi On Aug 16, 2016, at 23:38, Robin Gross <[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 ************************************************************* 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 *************************************************************