<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Great idea.</p>
<p>So attaching the ppt sent out by Bernie in prep for ICANN
Helsinki Sunday all day WS2 session.</p>
<p>These are the WS2 areas:<br>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">Human Rights<br>
Jurisdiction<br>
SO/AC Accountability<br>
Ombudsman<br>
Transparency<br>
Staff Accountability<br>
Guidelines for standards of conduct presumed to be in good faith
associated with exercising removal of individual ICANN Board
Directors<br>
Reviewing the CEP (as set forth in Section
4.3);
and additional topic carried over from WS1- IRP “phase 2”<!--EndFragment--></blockquote>
</p>
<p>While it seems that staff will be circulating a google form
survey to assess where folks may want to engage, it would be good
to get a sense as to who might be interested in what. Also, if
there are any hardy souls who wish to step forward to be
considered as DT leads, they should indicate so. The process for
selection of DT leads is unclear. <br>
</p>
<p>Ideally we would have representation in the DTs that has issue
expertise and preferably CCWG experience, as well as a willingness
to "get stuck in" and draft. <br>
</p>
<p>Perhaps we could have a call in the two weeks to kick start the
conversation. I know that there has been quite a bit of prep work
done in the CCWP HR. Perhaps we can identify issue leaders for
the call who can review/update the participants on the scope of
the WS2 issues and propose approaches we might want to take?</p>
<p>Matthew<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/27/2016 8:22 AM, Mueller, Milton L
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BY2PR07MB240813559CFC1742C3203E4BA1420@BY2PR07MB2408.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Good suggestion, Avri.
Let's get some strategy on Work Stream 2
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>] On Behalf Of
avri doria
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:29 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>
Subject: how do we move forward was Re: [] great opening ...
Hi,
Should we be able to work on stuff on list and in other environments online in
the meantime?
I think it would be good to talk about WS2 in NCSG before the one day
meeting in Helsinki some of us are hoping to get to by hook or by crook (or
will be there in remote in any case). Maybe a good time for our PC to plan a
webinar/discussion? Or maybe even a NCSG involvement campaign.
avri
On 26-May-16 16:56, Matthew Shears wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
+ 1 James
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.
Matthew
On 5/26/2016 8:12 PM, James Gannon wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
From: NCSG-Discuss <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU></a>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM">kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM"><mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM></a>>
Reply-To: Kathy Kleiman <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM">kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM"><mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM></a>>
Date: Thursday 26 May 2016 at 19:15
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">"NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"</a> <NCSG-
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU></a>>
Subject: Re: great opening statement by Brett
All,
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 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.
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.
*Annex 2:*
Power: 3. Reject changes to Standard Bylaws Threshold to convene: Two
SOs/ACs, including the SO that led the PDP that requires the Bylaw
change (if any) 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
*Annex 7:*
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.
Let's talk details - if you help us understand, we'll appreciate
it. But this is much more than a transition from USG oversight...
Kathy
On 5/26/2016 12:26 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
*From:*David Post [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com">mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com</a>]
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.
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.
MM: As someone who has written about early post-revolutionary
America, I wonder how you would respond to my argument “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?”
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.
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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
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>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</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>