Dear Ed, I sympathize, but this is not the first time this question has been brought up. And since the voting has started, I hope you can treat this as a matter of priority. Best, Niels On 08/21/2016 07:46 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > Hi James and Paul > > Thanks for your messages and for your enthusiasm! > > I need to apologize – this is the busiest time of the year for me > workwise. Our academics here, students and professors, often disappear > from the lists for a few weeks around exam time. It’s crunch time for > them. The last few weeks in August is the equivalent in the music > industry in the UK and US. My jobs usually have great flexibility, > that’s why I’m one of the few non academics able to volunteer here: > except at this time of year. I just got through with a three day > festival in the rain and mud, living in tents in the South of England, > will be doing the same for four days at the Leeds and Reading Festivals > next weekend (hopefully without the rain!) and am working clubs every > night this week. I also have six ICANN calls in the next four days that > I've factored into my schedule.. > > The answers are coming and I can only apologize for the delay. I hope to > have the first set up Monday and then will do the best I can. Apologies > to everyone. We’re all volunteers here, most of us are not paid for this > work (I certainly am not!), so I hope folks can relate. > > Thanks for your understanding – and post midnight greetings from a rest > area off a highway somewhere in the South of England, > > Best, > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: "Paul Rosenzweig" <[log in to unmask]> > *Sent*: Sunday, August 21, 2016 5:40 PM > *To*: [log in to unmask] > *Subject*: Re: Views on Adding Human Rights to the Bylaws > > > James > > > > It is the weekend. Some people have lives outside of this list. I > suspect that we will hear from the other candidates in due course. > > > > P > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 > > www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> > > My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ > > > > *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of > *James Gannon > *Sent:* Sunday, August 21, 2016 7:14 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Views on Adding Human Rights to the Bylaws > > > > Just following up on this, we have a number of candidates being asked > questions on various topics by a few NCSG members, but I have only seen > Stephanie responding, this to me is quite disappointing and doesn’t > reflect well. > > > > I would appreciate those asking for our votes to respond. > > > > -James > > > > > > *From: *NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Tatiana Tropina > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > *Reply-To: *Tatiana Tropina <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > *Date: *Saturday 20 August 2016 at 09:35 > *To: *"[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > *Subject: *Re: Views on Adding Human Rights to the Bylaws > > > > 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] > <mailto:[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] > <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]] > *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]>> 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 > ************************************************************* > > > > > -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9