[Polling] ICANN Los Angeles meeting: NCSG and Board meeting 14th October

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

I also see an overlap between human rights considerations and WHOIS, and support Kathy’s proposal to add the EWG report and upcoming post-EWG PDP as a talking point with the board.

I may be a little biased, but I think we should always talk to the board about WHOIS whenever we get the chance. IMHO, it’s the biggest policy mess we will always have to deal with.

Thanks.

Amr

On Sep 23, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> @Kathy, do you think that concerns with the EWG report could be mainstreamed as a key exemple to render discussions on HR at ICANN (topic 1) concrete with something we can act upon?
> 
> I see a strong correlation between 2 and 3. The bottom-up multistakeholder model can not function without proper accountability. In sum, I support the three topics.
> 
> Best
> Marília
> 
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
> /William Drake wrote:/
> On 3) ..."It also ties directly to a debate that both Fadi and some board members have been starting in various contexts, particularly the SO-AC-SG chairs space, about “trust” and the weaknesses thereof revealed in the accountability process.  Having a frank and open discussion of this would be useful"
> 
> I think in this case it would also be good to "to specify exactly which outcomes on non-outcomes to date we have a concern about, otherwise we could get sort of generic answers back about how of course they are following the process blah blah blah" (as On 2) below.
> 
> Maybe stating here a reference to the response by Fadi Chehade and Stephen Crocker (in response to the stakeholder leader's letter /"Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance"/ to Fadi Chehade and the Board) if a substantial number of NCSG colleagues also feel that their response was not an appropriate answer to the serious questions raised. That is what I feel - it has not raised my "trust". And NOT raising this frankly and specifically may result in loosing a unique opportunity for an open discussion with the board.
> 
> Norbert Klein
> Cambodia
> 
> 
> On 9/23/2014 1:26 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Sep 22, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> as usual we will have 1 hour meeting with the board and they need topics we want to discuss in advance.
> can you please share what you think we should discuss with them. Please write a brief introduction of the topic you want to suggest.
> 
> as starter I think we  have those proposed by Avri :
> 
>  1. Human Rights considerations at ICANN
>  2. Discussion on outcomes to date from the ATRT2 report
>  3. What does multistakeholder bottom-up process mean at ICANN  (this
>     may be related to one there on essence of ICANN.)
> 
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> On 1) there will be further discussion of the COE paper and HR issues at NCUC’s Constituency Day meeting and there’s talk of trying to also organize a cross-community meeting of some sort Wednesday, but I’m not sure whether the latter will pan out in the time available.  It’d be useful to engage the board in the discussion.
> 
> On 2) it might be good to specify exactly which outcomes on non-outcomes to date we have a concern about, otherwise we could get sort of generic answers back about how of course they are following the process blah blah blah.
> 
> On 3) I think this is important because there’ve been comments from ICANN leadership about what does bottom up really mean, how important is it, isn’t it just a drag on the quick decision making needed, it’s not in the bylaws, etc., which is a bit worrying. * It also ties directly to a debate that both Fadi and some board members have been starting in various contexts, particularly the SO-AC-SG chairs space, about “trust” and the weaknesses thereof revealed in the accountability process*.  Having a frank and open discussion of this would be useful, it’s on a lot of minds and I imagine the board will have parallel sorts of discussions with other groupings that day.
> 
> In terms of priority and time allocation I’d argue for 3 1 2 but others may have different preferences.  Hopefully we don’t compress 3) too much or we’ll get stock answers rather than probing dialogue.
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Marília Maciel
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> 
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20140923/666f3ff5/attachment.htm>