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

[Kathy Kleiman]

@Marilia, interesting idea. It depends upon what the presenter of the 
Human Rights issues wants to cover. But in the case of the Expert 
Working Group report (to the person who asked earlier: the "EWG" report 
is a recent expert working group report recommending a single database 
of all Whois data -- validated, verified, and available to lots and lots 
of intellectual property attorneys and law enforcement around the 
world), we have a discrete item the Board cares about the perfect forum 
(the NCSG-Board) meeting at which we can raise our deep, deep concerns.

Timing need only be a few minutes - 5-10 max. But it's  a focused item 
on the Board's mind, on our mind, and about to run through the GNSO and 
Board perhaps without brakes. As Amr said - we have to speak out loudly 
and often.  Whereever you want to put it, I'm game!

Best,
Kathy

:
> @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 
> <mailto: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>
>         <mailto: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 <http://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/a114a985/attachment.htm>