<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>+ 1 James</p>
<p>But I think this raises an interesting question that's going to
become more pressing post transition - which is how fast and how
well NCSG/NCUC/NPOC can get up to speed in terms of not only
their/our respective responsibilities with regard being part of
the EC, but also in terms of what our views should be on WS2 -
which at the moment is a hodge podge of issue areas that everyone
is reading into. While Helsinki is seemingly impossible to find
time at for this type of important discussion - which shows how
unhelpful this new structure is - perhaps we can find time to do a
deep dive into these two matters in Hyderabad.</p>
<p>Matthew<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/26/2016 8:12 PM, James Gannon
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:72F9FB57-6290-48AB-9B0E-7637C884E590@cyberinvasion.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none;
padding:0px;">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:12pt;
text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none;
BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT:
0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid;
BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>NCSG-Discuss
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>>
on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM">kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Reply-To: </span>Kathy
Kleiman <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM">kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Thursday 26 May
2016 at 19:15<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a></a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: great
opening statement by Brett<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none;
padding:0px;">
<p>All,</p>
<p>I think the nuances of the concerns are being missed.
There is something much, much more than the mere
transition of the US Government out of its current
role. As Avri pointed out earlier today: "This was
linked to improvements in ICANN accountability. We
fought for that and got it. Upfront we agreed to this
process be divided into two parts."</p>
<p>I think everyone agrees with the transition -- Bret
certainly said he did at the hearing. But it is those
improvements of ICANN Accountability that people are
questioning. Are they fair? Are they balanced? Are
they understood by all who will be impacted by them</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
<div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>JG: This was a process of two years produced in an open
and inclusive manner for everyone who wanted to be at
the table, everyone had their chance for input, for
assessment for including the views of their
stakeholders, I contend that yes everyone who is
impacted by these changes has been engaged with.</p>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none;
padding:0px;">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>I have to tell you I am concerned because there seem to
be a lot of "gotchas" -- meaning every time I hear
someone testify about the details of the Accountability
& Transition plan, someone else (involved with the
process) says that he/she/it did not understand it that
way. There was certainly a lot of last minute changes
and maneuvering. There is not, frankly, a lot of
knowledge or understanding about the details of how this
restructuring and reorganization is going to work.
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</span>
<div>JG: I disagree with this, we have a comprehensive plan, with
a large amount of detail, to a level that shows the details
needed to understand. If people do not wish to read the proposal
and gain understanding then I don’t feel that they have the
ability to sit at the sidelines and criticise. Informed
criticism and feedback is welcome, posturing is not.</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none;
padding:0px;">
<p>Rather than name-calling, or picture discussion, let's
talk about the details (the devil's always there,
right). Can a consensus policy really be appealed to an
Independent Review Process proceeding by one of the
multiple stakeholders involved? Isn't that going to
give those stakeholders with the most time and resources
a third, fourth and fifth bite at the policies we are
negotiating? Isn't that going to undermine our months
and years of work in the policy development process and
working groups? That's one question that no one has
been able to answer for me.</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</span>
<div>JG: Please I encourage everyone to read the proposal, so much
misinformation and fear uncertainty and doubt is being spread by
certain actors at the moment I really suggest people with
concerns go back to the source and stop listening to others who
are trying to further an agenda. PDP carveout are in the
proposal for exactly that reason.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Annex 2:</b></div>
<div>Power: 3. Reject changes to Standard Bylaws</div>
<div>Threshold to convene: Two SOs/ACs, including the SO that led
the PDP that requires the Bylaw change (if any)</div>
<div>Threshold to reject: Three support rejection, including the
SO that led the PDP that requires the Bylaw change (if any), and
no more than one objection</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Annex 7:</b></div>
<div>Challenges the result(s) of a Supporting Organization’s
policy development process (PDP) Notwithstanding the foregoing
and notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a
community IRP, no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of
an SO’s policy development process (PDP) may be launched without
the support of the SO that approved the policy recommendations
from the PDP or, in the case of the result(s) of a Cross
Community Working Group (CCWG) chartered by more than one SO,
without the support of the SOs that approved the policy
recommendations from that CCWG.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none;
padding:0px;">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Let's talk details -
if you help us understand, we'll appreciate it. But this
is much more than a transition from USG oversight...
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</span>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><br>
<p>Kathy<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/26/2016 12:26 PM, Mueller,
Milton L wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BY2PR07MB240824ECB660C59969512860A1410@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15
(filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
David Post [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com">mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
</span><br>
But that's not the goal, in my eyes. The goal is to
create an institution that can manage these
resources in a reasonable way, for the next [many]
years.<span style="color:#1F497D"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">MM:
As Avri noted, the goal of the stewardship
transition was to…transition, i.e. get the US govt
out of its current role. I am flabbergasted by the
fact that you do not see the US oversight role as
a broken part of the institution.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">MM:
As someone who has written about early
post-revolutionary America, I wonder how you would
respond to my argument “</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#444444;background:white">all
these new democratic government models are new and
untested. We don’t really know how well they will
work. Why doesn’t the United States retain its
status as a British colony under the King for a
few years, and let him decide if the experiment
has worked?”</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All I'm suggesting is that it
would hardly seem unreasonable, to me, if the USG
took the position that while it is signing off on
the transition, it is doing so subject to a kind of
probationary period that will enable us all to
understand better whether and how it actually works.
Perhaps other countries will view that as a terribly
untrustworthy move, perhaps they won't - I do think
it helps that it is, fundamentally, quite a
reasonable position to take.<br>
<br>
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">MM:
So you assume that the USG is NOT part of the
machine, it is a deus ex machina that we can
invoke at any time to insert an entirely rational,
undistorted corrective action on whatever happens?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a> | T: +44.771.247.2987
</pre>
</body>
</html>