<div dir="ltr">Great suggestion Avri. Let's start the discussion.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-05-27 9:22 GMT+02:00 Mueller, Milton L <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Good suggestion, Avri.<br>
Let's get some strategy on Work Stream 2<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>] On Behalf Of<br>
> avri doria<br>
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:29 PM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
> Subject: how do we move forward was Re: [] great opening ...<br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> Should we be able to work on stuff on list and in other environments online in<br>
> the meantime?<br>
><br>
> I think it would be good to talk about WS2 in NCSG before the one day<br>
> meeting in Helsinki some of us are hoping to get to by hook or by crook (or<br>
> will be there in remote in any case). Maybe a good time for our PC to plan a<br>
> webinar/discussion? Or maybe even a NCSG involvement campaign.<br>
><br>
> avri<br>
><br>
> On 26-May-16 16:56, Matthew Shears wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > + 1 James<br>
> ><br>
> > But I think this raises an interesting question that's going to become<br>
> > more pressing post transition - which is how fast and how well<br>
> > NCSG/NCUC/NPOC can get up to speed in terms of not only their/our<br>
> > respective responsibilities with regard being part of the EC, but also<br>
> > in terms of what our views should be on WS2 - which at the moment is a<br>
> > hodge podge of issue areas that everyone is reading into. While<br>
> > Helsinki is seemingly impossible to find time at for this type of<br>
> > important discussion - which shows how unhelpful this new structure is<br>
> > - perhaps we can find time to do a deep dive into these two matters in<br>
> > Hyderabad.<br>
> ><br>
> > Matthew<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On 5/26/2016 8:12 PM, James Gannon wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> From: NCSG-Discuss <<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
> >> <mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman<br>
> >> <<a href="mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM">kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM">kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM</a>>><br>
> >> Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM">kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM</a><br>
> >> <mailto:<a href="mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM">kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM</a>>><br>
> >> Date: Thursday 26 May 2016 at 19:15<br>
> >> To: "<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>" <NCSG-<br>
> <a href="mailto:DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
> >> <mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>>><br>
> >> Subject: Re: great opening statement by Brett<br>
> >><br>
> >> All,<br>
> >><br>
> >> I think the nuances of the concerns are being missed. There is<br>
> >> something much, much more than the mere transition of the US<br>
> >> Government out of its current role. As Avri pointed out earlier<br>
> >> today: "This was linked to improvements in ICANN<br>
> >> accountability. We fought for that and got it. Upfront we agreed<br>
> >> to this process be divided into two parts."<br>
> >><br>
> >> I think everyone agrees with the transition -- Bret certainly<br>
> >> said he did at the hearing. But it is those improvements of ICANN<br>
> >> Accountability that people are questioning. Are they fair? Are<br>
> >> they balanced? Are they understood by all who will be impacted by<br>
> >> them<br>
> >><br>
> >> JG: This was a process of two years produced in an open and inclusive<br>
> >> manner for everyone who wanted to be at the table, everyone had their<br>
> >> chance for input, for assessment for including the views of their<br>
> >> stakeholders, I contend that yes everyone who is impacted by these<br>
> >> changes has been engaged with.<br>
> >><br>
> >> I have to tell you I am concerned because there seem to be a lot<br>
> >> of "gotchas" -- meaning every time I hear someone testify about<br>
> >> the details of the Accountability & Transition plan, someone else<br>
> >> (involved with the process) says that he/she/it did not<br>
> >> understand it that way. There was certainly a lot of last minute<br>
> >> changes and maneuvering. There is not, frankly, a lot of<br>
> >> knowledge or understanding about the details of how this<br>
> >> restructuring and reorganization is going to work.<br>
> >><br>
> >> JG: I disagree with this, we have a comprehensive plan, with a large<br>
> >> amount of detail, to a level that shows the details needed to<br>
> >> understand. If people do not wish to read the proposal and gain<br>
> >> understanding then I don’t feel that they have the ability to sit at<br>
> >> the sidelines and criticise. Informed criticism and feedback is<br>
> >> welcome, posturing is not.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Rather than name-calling, or picture discussion, let's talk about<br>
> >> the details (the devil's always there, right). Can a consensus<br>
> >> policy really be appealed to an Independent Review Process<br>
> >> proceeding by one of the multiple stakeholders involved? Isn't<br>
> >> that going to give those stakeholders with the most time and<br>
> >> resources a third, fourth and fifth bite at the policies we are<br>
><br>
> >> negotiating? Isn't that going to undermine our months and years<br>
> >> of work in the policy development process and working groups?<br>
> >> That's one question that no one has been able to answer for me.<br>
> >><br>
> >> JG: Please I encourage everyone to read the proposal, so much<br>
> >> misinformation and fear uncertainty and doubt is being spread by<br>
> >> certain actors at the moment I really suggest people with concerns go<br>
> >> back to the source and stop listening to others who are trying to<br>
> >> further an agenda. PDP carveout are in the proposal for exactly that<br>
> >> reason.<br>
> >><br>
> >> *Annex 2:*<br>
> >> Power: 3. Reject changes to Standard Bylaws Threshold to convene: Two<br>
> >> SOs/ACs, including the SO that led the PDP that requires the Bylaw<br>
> >> change (if any) Threshold to reject: Three support rejection,<br>
> >> including the SO that led the PDP that requires the Bylaw change (if<br>
> >> any), and no more than one objection<br>
> >><br>
> >> *Annex 7:*<br>
> >> Challenges the result(s) of a Supporting Organization’s policy<br>
> >> development process (PDP) Notwithstanding the foregoing and<br>
> >> notwithstanding any required threshold for launching a community IRP,<br>
> >> no community IRP that challenges the result(s) of an SO’s policy<br>
> >> development process (PDP) may be launched without the support of the<br>
> >> SO that approved the policy recommendations from the PDP or, in the<br>
> >> case of the result(s) of a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG)<br>
> >> chartered by more than one SO, without the support of the SOs that<br>
> >> approved the policy recommendations from that CCWG.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Let's talk details - if you help us understand, we'll appreciate<br>
> >> it. But this is much more than a transition from USG oversight...<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> Kathy<br>
> >><br>
> >> On 5/26/2016 12:26 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> *From:*David Post [mailto:<a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com">david.g.post@gmail.com</a>]<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> But that's not the goal, in my eyes. The goal is to create an<br>
> >>> institution that can manage these resources in a reasonable way, for<br>
> >>> the next [many] years.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> MM: As Avri noted, the goal of the stewardship transition was<br>
> >>> to…transition, i.e. get the US govt out of its current role. I am<br>
> >>> flabbergasted by the fact that you do not see the US oversight role<br>
> >>> as a broken part of the institution.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> MM: As someone who has written about early post-revolutionary<br>
> >>> America, I wonder how you would respond to my argument “all these<br>
> >>> new democratic government models are new and untested. We don’t<br>
> >>> really know how well they will work. Why doesn’t the United States<br>
> >>> retain its status as a British colony under the King for a few<br>
> >>> years, and let him decide if the experiment has worked?”<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> All I'm suggesting is that it would hardly seem unreasonable, to me,<br>
> >>> if the USG took the position that while it is signing off on the<br>
> >>> transition, it is doing so subject to a kind of probationary period<br>
> >>> that will enable us all to understand better whether and how it<br>
> >>> actually works. Perhaps other countries will view that as a terribly<br>
> >>> untrustworthy move, perhaps they won't - I do think it helps that it<br>
> >>> is, fundamentally, quite a reasonable position to take.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> MM: So you assume that the USG is NOT part of the machine, it is a<br>
> >>> deus ex machina that we can invoke at any time to insert an entirely<br>
> >>> rational, undistorted corrective action on whatever happens?<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >><br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> ><br>
> > Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights<br>
> > Project Center for Democracy & Technology | <a href="http://cdt.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">cdt.org</a><br>
> > E: <a href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a> | T: <a href="tel:%2B44.771.247.2987" value="+447712472987">+44.771.247.2987</a><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ---<br>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
> <a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>