<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>+ 1 Rafik<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/08/2016 01:04, Rafik Dammak
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAH5sThkkAC0SbxsLCCBvpg-MZUudCqt0S=ObBhJMNU68EtxH2w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">Hi,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">we constantly advocate for long time
for Human Right dimension at policy development in ICANN in
generic names and we made a lot of progress in the last years
that really surprises me when I recall reactions about the
topic in council till I left just 4 years. </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">The inclusion in the bylaws can be seen
as a success. I may understand the concerns of some regarding
how that can be interpreted by other, if it has any unintended
consequences or if the language is enough satisfactory but I
don't see how that can be a blocking issue nor that we should
take a conservative position toward statu quo. </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">we can and we are working on defining
safeguards to mitigate the risks, via the framework of
interpretation in the workstream 2 and the Human Rights
subgroup. we need to keep our commitment there with all NCSG
volunteers.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">we know by experience that we have to
fight and work for the long run and that the inclusion is just
a stepping stone for more work to come.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Best,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Rafik</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2016-08-20 16:55 GMT+09:00 William
Drake <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com" target="_blank">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>(was: A Few Take-Aways from Meet the Candidates
Call re: Council Transparency and Coordination)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Hi
<div><br>
</div>
<div>How about we discuss the human rights issue issue
under this subject line? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Aug 19, 2016, at 20:52, Niels ten Oever
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:lists@digitaldissidents.org"
target="_blank">lists@digitaldissidents.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>Dear all,<br>
<br>
I think Bill and Milton raised very important
questions concerning the<br>
work of the GNSO. I would like to ask two more
questions based on what<br>
Milton has already asked.<br>
<br>
I read in Ed’s statement about his strong
commitment to freedom of<br>
expression. I would like to ask again – after
asking this in person, in<br>
a session and in the +1 thread here, because I
believe it is important<br>
for us to know: Why did Ed vote, as the only
GNSO councilor, against the<br>
addition of a commitment for ICANN to respect
human rights to ICANN bylaws?<br>
This is not just about NCSG GNSO councilors,
but Ed was only one of ALL<br>
GNSO councilors to vote against the commitment
to human rights.<br>
<br>
And furthermore, why did Ed not discuss this
openly, before the vote, on<br>
the NCSG list. Because I think the concerns Ed
had were not shared<br>
widely within the NCSG, except for Heritage
and himself.<br>
<br>
I find it a problem of accountability how Ed
continuously seem to not<br>
want to discuss this openly within our
constituency, but does vote on<br>
behalf of it. Here I would like to quote the
charter again:<br>
<br>
"Each NCSG GNSO Council Representative shall
represent, within the GNSO<br>
Council, ICANN and its activities, the goals
and priorities of the NCSG<br>
to the best of his/her ability and in
accordance with the principle of<br>
consensus building."<br>
<br>
and:<br>
<br>
"Council Representatives will, however, be
expected to understand the<br>
varied positions in the NCSG and to explain to
the membership how their<br>
votes are in support of noncommercial
interests. NCSG GNSO Councilors<br>
should work with the NCSG‑PC to develop NCSG
policy positions. NCSG GNSO<br>
Council Representatives are expected to keep
the NCSG membership<br>
informed of policy issues before the GNSO
Council, to seek input from<br>
the NCSG membership and to be responsive to
member requests for<br>
information on matters pending before the
Council."<br>
<br>
Last but not least. If you look at the voting
history in the GNSO, it is<br>
clear that there is a pattern of Ed
structurally making other choices<br>
than the other NCSG GNSO councilors. I do not
think this is necessarily<br>
bad, but I do not see any explanation for this
reflected in Ed’s statement.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Niels<br>
<br>
<br>
On 08/19/2016 12:57 PM, Mueller, Milton L
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I would like to raise
an issue that was completely avoided in our<br>
discussions yesterday.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Probably the biggest issue facing the whole
ICANN environment right now<br>
is the IANA transition – the end of US Govt
control of the DNS root<br>
zone, and the completion of ICANN’s movement
toward self-governance.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
My sense is that the overwhelming majority
of us in this Stakeholder<br>
Group (NCSG) are in favor of the transition
and the accountability<br>
reforms associated with it. None of us
thinks they are perfect, of<br>
course, but almost all of us believe that we
are better off making those<br>
changes than sticking with the status quo.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
There are a few exceptions. It is clear that
the Heritage Foundation,<br>
one of our (eligible!) member organization,
is working very hard in<br>
Washington to raise obstacles to the
transition. It appears to me that<br>
one of our Council members, Ed Morris, has
aligned himself with the<br>
Heritage folks in opposing completion of the
transition at this time,<br>
though I could be wrong about that. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I think it is perfectly acceptable for there
to be different views<br>
within the NCSG. However, it’s also critical
for our members to know<br>
what they are voting for, and to have that
debate openly. To my mind, a<br>
Council member who actively works against
the completion of the<br>
transition has a dramatically different
vision of the nature of ICANN<br>
and its long term future than one who wants
to move ahead with the<br>
accountability reforms and IANA transition.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Therefore it’s critical for our members to
know how all Councilors stand<br>
on this question.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
So I’d like to see the candidates answer
these questions;<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
1. Do you think that if the U.S.
Congress blocks the transition in<br>
the next 6 weeks that it will be a disaster
for the multistakeholder<br>
model of Internet governance? Why or why
not?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
2. Are you actively supporting the
Heritage Foundation’s (and<br>
other rightwing groups’) efforts to mobilize
Congressional Republicans<br>
to block the transition?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
3. How do you think we as a SG should
respond if the transition is<br>
blocked by the U.S. Congress?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I look forward to discussion of these
questions by the candidates.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dr. Milton L. Mueller<br>
<br>
Professor, School of Public Policy<br>
<br>
Georgia Institute of Technology<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*From:*NCSG-Discuss [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"
target="_blank">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.<wbr>SYR.EDU</a>]
*On Behalf Of<br>
*William Drake<br>
*Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2016 6:04 AM<br>
*To:* <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu"
target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
*Subject:* A Few Take-Aways from Meet the
Candidates Call re: Council<br>
Transparency and Coordination<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Yesterday’s call provided a useful
opportunity for dialogue on the<br>
candidates’ views and priorities and also
turned out to offer some folks<br>
a chance to start clearing the air, however
uncomfortably, regarding<br>
issues that arose within our Council
contingent the last cycle. I’d<br>
like to suggest a couple take-aways in hopes
that we can re-set that<br>
which needs to be and move forward on a
firmer footing. Purely my own<br>
views, which I guess some folks will
disagree with, in which case fine,<br>
let’s talk it out.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
1. Differences of perspective among
Councilors are fine but these<br>
should be openly shared in order to preserve
trust. It might make sense<br>
for the interested parties to find some
congenial space in which to<br>
privately work through past bits of friction
that arose re: e.g.<br>
Marrakech, the GNSO chair selection, and
whatever else. It doesn’t make<br>
sense to leave misunderstandings unresolved
and entrenched as it can<br>
impact on the effectiveness of the team
effort going forward. Hyderabad<br>
obviously offers F2F options, which are
likely to be the most productive<br>
in coming to resolutions, but it might make
sense not to wait entirely<br>
on this.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
2. It would be helpful if Councilors could
be sure to attend the monthly<br>
NCSG calls and proactively share their
thinking about upcoming Council<br>
meetings and votes with each other and the
wider membership. In ancient<br>
times when I was on Council we regarded
these as fairly mandatory and<br>
tried to miss only exceptionally and with
notification, but more<br>
recently participation seems to have be
spottier at times (I believe the<br>
NCSG chair has attendance records?). Yes
we’re all volunteers with day<br>
jobs and travels so things can happen, but
it shouldn’t be the case that<br>
people miss more than a couple per annual
cycle.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
3. In parallel, it’d be good to have greater
open discussion of pending<br>
votes and positions on the NCSG PC mail
list. I’ve been on that list<br>
since we set it up in 2011 (first as a
Councilor, then as an observer)<br>
and think it’s under-utilized resource that
should work in synch with<br>
our monthly calls and those of the Council.
Of course, issues should<br>
not always be sorted purely on an internal
PC basis; important policy<br>
choices at least should also be vetted on
ncsg-discuss so the PC is well<br>
informed by a feel for general member
sentiment, even if it’s divided. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Either way, between the monthly calls and
the PC, we shouldn’t have<br>
cases where members of the team don’t know
until they arrive at a<br>
Council meeting how their colleagues will
vote, or what contacts and<br>
representations of the group’s shared
positions are being made to other<br>
stakeholder groups, etc. You can’t have a
team effort if people are<br>
unaware of each others’ doings.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
4. Part of the PC’s challenge has always
been to ensure effective<br>
chairing, including tracking of progress on
open projects, herding cats,<br>
etc. We’ve always appointed Councilors to
chair but the results have<br>
been variable as people are already maxed
out. On yesterday’s call Ed<br>
made a suggestion that merits consideration:
having a non-Council member<br>
as chair, and allocating one of the NCSG
travel slots to this person so<br>
as to promote their continuous coordination
of the process. It’d be<br>
interesting to hear views on this.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
5. After-meeting reporting to the
membership of the issues and votes<br>
should be routinized. This doesn’t have
involve demanding magnum opus<br>
treatments, a couple paragraphs one a month
should be sufficient and<br>
doable. I’d suggested (below) that the six
Councilors could rotate the<br>
responsibility, as was briefly attempted in
2009-2010. Stephanie<br>
counter-proposed on the call that reporting
be done by non-Councilors,<br>
in part as a way of on-boarding ‘new blood’
and helping to prepare folks<br>
to stand for Council in a future election.
This could work too,<br>
although it may involve some extra
coordination to ensure every<br>
Councilors’ votes and views are reflected to
taste. Worth a try…<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If we could do at least some of this, I
think it’d increase our team’s<br>
solidarity and our general members’
understanding of what their<br>
representative are up to, what’s in play in
the GNSO, and what the<br>
opportunities for engaging in working groups
and such are. It’d also<br>
make our votes in elections more well
informed.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Aug 17, 2016, at 10:39, William Drake
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com"
target="_blank">wjdrake@gmail.com</a><br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com"
target="_blank">mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com</a>>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Aug 16, 2016, at 23:38, Robin
Gross <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org"
target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a><br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org"
target="_blank">mailto:robin@<wbr>ipjustice.org</a>>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Agreed. It is important for members
to become more acquainted<br>
with our representatives and resumes
are extremely helpful for that.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sharing candidates’ resumes is not a bad
idea. But I’d like to<br>
suggest we go beyond this. Two issue we
might want to consider on<br>
tomorrow’s call:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
When I joined Council in 2009, we
discussed the need for better<br>
reporting to members as to what their
reps were actually doing in<br>
Council. We launched an attempt to deal
with this by having<br>
Councilors take turns doing brief reports
about Council meetings.<br>
Alas it didn’t get far, after a couple
times the sense of urgency<br>
faded, people told themselves “well,
members can always look at the<br>
Council archive to see what’s happening,"
and the effort drifted<br>
off. But of course it’s actually not
easy for a member to dive<br>
through the Council archive and try to
reconstruct what’s happening,<br>
and it’s not so hard to compose a one or
two paragraph summary of a<br>
monthly Council meeting indicating how
our reps voted on which<br>
issues, especially if the workload is
rotated among six Councilors,<br>
making it just a few times per year
each. So while it’s a bit<br>
uncomfortable suggesting work to be done
by others, I’d like to put<br>
this idea back on the table ahead of our
Meet the Candidates call<br>
tomorrow. It need not be an one onerous
thing, and after all we<br>
exist to participate in the GNSO, so
surely we should be able to<br>
know how our reps are representing us in
the GNSO. Especially when<br>
we’re being asked to vote them into
‘office’ (for incumbents) on the<br>
basis of past performance.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
More generally, we have long debated the
matter of coordination<br>
among Council reps. Unlike most if not
all other parts of the GNSO,<br>
NCSG by charter doesn’t normally do
‘directed voting,’ where the<br>
members are bound to vote in conformity
with a rough consensus<br>
position. We have a charter provision to
do this in exceptional<br>
cases, but I don’t recall it ever being
invoked. We’ve always been<br>
content to operate on the notion that the
Councilor does what s/he<br>
thinks is in the best interest of civil
society @ GNSO, and if<br>
members don’t approve of anyone’s action
they can vote them out in<br>
the next cycle. But as that has not
really happened, it’s sort of a<br>
meaningless check and balance. And this
is not without consequence,<br>
as we’ve sometimes had internal
differences within our contingent<br>
that have arguably undermined our
effectiveness and credibility in<br>
the eyes of the community and staff, and
can even allow our various<br>
business stakeholder group counterparts
to exploit the differences<br>
in order to push through what they want
in opposition to our common<br>
baseline views. So at a minimum, we need
to do better somehow at<br>
team coordination and make sure all our
Councilors know what each<br>
other is doing and why and so there’s no
real time surprises,<br>
especially during meetings with high
stakes votes.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
-- <br>
Niels ten Oever<br>
Head of Digital<br>
<br>
Article 19<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.article19.org"
target="_blank">www.article19.org</a><br>
<br>
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4<br>
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word">
<div
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word">
<div
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word">
<div
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><br>
******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>*<br>
William J. Drake<br>
International Fellow & Lecturer<br>
Media Change & Innovation
Division, IPMZ<br>
University of Zurich, Switzerland<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch"
target="_blank">william.drake@uzh.ch</a> (direct),<wbr> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com"
target="_blank">wjdrake@gmail.com</a> (lists),<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.williamdrake.org"
target="_blank">www.williamdrake.org</a><br>
<i>The Working Group on Internet Governance
- 10th Anniversary Reflections</i><br>
New book at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://amzn.to/22hWZxC"
target="_blank">http://amzn.to/22hWZxC</a><br>
******************************<wbr>******************************<wbr>*</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987</pre>
</body>
</html>