Dear Ed, Another week has gone by. These questions have been open for quite a while now, just like the elections. I would like to ask you again to answer these questions, because I think this is part of your obligations as a councilor as well as a candidate. Best, Niels On 08/22/2016 06:53 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > 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