The policy call is on now Niels, if you wish to raise it. Started at 9 UTC I think... Stephanie On 2016-08-31 5:49, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Dear all, > > > > With another week passing by I am afraid my point is being proven: there > is a lack of accountability a councilor and a candidate in our election. > Ed Morris has made a _very_ strong position in Marrakesh on Human Rights > (attached, page 39-41 or search for > North Korea') which has not been discussed on this list with the > community, as ordained in the charter and as I asked Ed in a policy > meeting as well as here on the list, both before and after he made the > statement. > > > > This means that both as a councilor and as a candidate, Ed is in breach > of the NCSG charter, as previously quoted: > > > > "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." > > > > I have asked Ed to respond several times in person and on this list, he > chose not to respond. > > > > This leaves me no other choice than to ask the NCSG EC to take a > position on this. > > > > Best, > > > > Niels > > On 08/26/2016 01:01 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote: >> 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 >>>> ************************************************************* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>