[PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments

Sun Sep 28 14:34:23 EEST 2014

Hi,

Keith indicated that is possible to join and sign on the coming days. I am
not seeing objections here I think we can proceed and endorse the letter.

but the accountability process, I hope that an ad-hoc group will more
functional to deliver statement and being involved in the process liaising
with whom will be appointed to coordination group from NCSG and also those
joining the community group.

Best,

Rafik

2014-09-28 16:42 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:

> Keith submitted without us.
>
>
> On Sep 27, 2014, at 10:07 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, let's do it.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> On Sep 27, 2014, at 12:04 AM, William Drake wrote:
>
> I think yes, all things considered
>
> BD
>
> On Sep 27, 2014, at 7:16 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> doing a quick poll, should we endorse this joint statement? if we cannot
> make it by today 16:00 UTC, we may send a short note to the public comment
> to endorse that statement.
> any thought?
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Date: 2014-09-26 20:39 GMT+09:00
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on
> ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments
> To: Adam <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
> Cc: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> lets go back to some basics here,
> Keith from registries stakeholder group shared the statement and asked if
> we can have a joint statement  between all ICANN groups. we have such
> document to review, to comment and suggesting concrete and specific tweaks.
> We are in consultation mode and see how we can go from there since no
> decision was discussed or made. nobody said that we will endorse it in the
> next 2 hours!!
>
> I think there is enough understanding that consultation within different
> groups takes time and need to be done properly. lets focus in substance and
> found if there is any point we disagree with in the statement and tell
> other ICANN groups.
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2014-09-26 18:15 GMT+09:00 Adam <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:
>
>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>
>> > Well this isn't a departure from what we said a month ago and a month
>> before that.
>>
>>
>> It's a new statement.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> > Nothing new here that we haven't already gone over to exhaustion
>> before.  Do you have any issues with the substance of the statement (which
>> raises concerns NCSG raised over a month ago)?
>> >
>> > If you have suggestions for edits, bring them forward.  Don't presume
>> we can't and should just walk away.
>> >
>> > Robin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Adam wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Bill,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:41 PM, William Drake wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi Adam
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Adam <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> My feeling is it's not appropriate for NCUC/NCSG to endorse
>> statements it has not had the opportunity to review, comment on, etc.
>> >>>
>> >>> Fair point as stated?so looking at the document, do you see anything
>> that is perhaps overly reflective of commercial actors? particularistic
>> interests, insufficiently attentive to noncommercials? interests, or
>> otherwise of concern?  If so, we could take it up with Keith and others and
>> ask for tweaks before signing on.  If not, wouldn?t it make sense to sign
>> on?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Do you agree with everything in the statement and think we should sign?
>> >>
>> >> 36 hours is an adequate constituency review period, a fair
>> interpretation of the NCUC and NCSG charters?
>> >>
>> >> We (our leaders...) asked for a 21day comment period, and the first we
>> hear of a comment is with less than two days left.  My concern is not with
>> what other constituencies say, but with NCUC/NCSG process, which seems
>> lacking.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for you efforts to make the SO/AC more transparent.
>> Appreciated, shame it seems to be such a battle, but thanks.
>> >>
>> >> Adam
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Is the SO/AC list archive now open?  Could we have the address.
>> >>>
>> >>> I asked again on the last call, Olivier of ALAC supported, nobody
>> else commented, so it?s not clear if staff think they have a mandate.
>> >>>
>> >>> As noted previously, the transcripts and recordings of the monthly
>> SO/AC/SG chair meetings are available (Confluence account needed) at
>> >>>
>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=soaceinputfdback&title=Event+Calendar.
>> They are supposed to be coordination and info sharing discussions, not an
>> off-the-books decision making channel, but if there are concerns about this
>> then let?s suggest a process, or at least define one for our side.  The
>> below exchange from the last call may be of interest in this context.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>>
>> >>> Bill
>> >>>
>> >>> -------
>> >>>
>> >>> Bill Drake:
>> >>>
>> >>> No worries, David. Just briefly, Fadi, I'm sure we all appreciate the
>> intention of what you?ve just said, and the spirit of it, it's very much
>> welcome, I think it is definitely the case that more often dialogue and
>> opportunities to communicate frankly with each other, about possible
>> misperceptions and the accumulated understandings would be really, really
>> constructive. And this mechanism that you are suggesting sounds like it
>> could be useful.
>> >>>
>> >>> But one thing I want to point out, this is just perhaps, maybe,
>> particularly an issue for me coming from the noncommercial side of things.
>> There are some concern, I think, amongst some people in the community about
>> the whole process of having this kind of shares-based [chairs-based] way of
>> interacting, and we haven?t even figured out, I think, ourselves how --
>> what the rules of the game are in some respects, with regard to how do
>> other people in the community participate? What is the understanding as to
>> what we can decide or tell you, and so on, what kind of internal
>> coordination does each group do within its group of -- with each Chair,
>> with each group before we have these discussions, and so on.
>> >>>
>> >>> It's getting a little bit complicated, so I think we have to,  maybe,
>> sort out a little bit how we approach this, if we are going to continue
>> with this mechanism. And I would say that if you are going to do these
>> roundtables, which is, as I say, a constructive idea, we might want to
>> consider, perhaps, including other people sometime, as well, not just
>> Chairs, because if people -- we have a little bit of an issue already, with
>> the fact that the SO/AC their own list is now publicly archived; a lot of
>> people were asking me what's going on in this group. It's not transparent,
>> what is this whole new channel that's been created for decision-making, how
>> does that fit with bottom-up spirit? So, I hope we sort that out, and I
>> hope we can maybe involve other more directly in the process too. Thanks.
>> >>>
>> >>> Fadi Chehad?:
>> >>>
>> >>> That's fair, Bill, and I look to your guidance. Just give me
>> guidance, tell me what would work. I mean, clearly we can, obviously share
>> with people that there are no decisions being made in these meetings, and
>> maybe before you come to these roundtables, given that they've elected you
>> to certain roles. Maybe you could seek input from them. Say, what is it you
>> want us to tell Fadi and his staff to improve, so this becomes -- and then
>> we will have a running list of things, and we can leave these things
>> completely transparent, and transcribed. Whatever will height -- certainly
>> we could have roundtables with, say, I don't know, 100 people, but I just
>> think the dynamic will be different.
>> >>>
>> >>> Ability to be brutally frank and say, look, Fadi, this is a mess, and
>> you need to work on it. I just need you to be comfortable doing this. So
>> guide me, I'm very open, and I just to find a way, frankly, to avoid
>> finding ourselves with the gulf that happened culminating in Istanbul,
>> which is, if we had not all stepped back away from that abyss, frankly we
>> would have been in a not very good place, certainly (inaudible) all of us.
>> And I thank each one of you for the wisdom that you have displayed and
>> you?ve come to me with. And look, we are just not in a good place. We are
>> not hearing each other.
>> >>>
>> >>> We don't need to get to that point again on many issues ahead of us,
>> so I'm trying to find a mechanism to ensure we perform without these gulfs
>> happening. And any suggestion, I'm open, and I'm committed.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> +1 to Norbert's view.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Cheers!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> >>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 26 Sep 2014 04:03, "Norbert Klein" <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
>> >>>>> If NCSG is the only one not yet signed, and as it seems in line
>> with our concern, I suggest that we do not try to make changes, but join
>> all the others with the present text.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Norbert Klein
>> >>>>> Cambodia
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> =
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 9/26/2014 9:58 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> >>>>> Actually, the stmt is being signed by the Registry Stakeholder
>> Group, the Registrar Stakeholder Group, the Business Constituency, the IP
>> Constituency, and the ISP Constituency.  So NCSG is the only other part of
>> the GNSO.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Best,
>> >>>>> Robin
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Adam wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 7:31 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks for passing this along, Rafik.  I think this draft cross
>> community submission is great and addresses many of the concerns we had
>> previously raised with ICANN's current accountability plan.  It also
>> proposes a few concrete suggestions for improving this process.  I hope
>> NCSG will endorse this cross community statement.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Robin,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> the statement's from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) not
>> cross constituency.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Adam
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Is there support from others as well?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>> Robin
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> >>>>> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing
>> ICANN Accountabitliy Plan / Registries comments
>> >>>>> Date: September 25, 2014 7:09:46 AM PDT
>> >>>>> To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi everyone,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> you find attached the comment from registries SG for the
>> accountability public comment and they are proposing several recommendations
>> >>>>> Keith their representative is asking if we would like to develop a
>> joint SO/AC/SG statement.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Best Regards,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Rafik
>> >>>>> <ICANN RySG Accountability Response v10 23 2014 Clean.docx>
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ***********************************************
>> >>> William J. Drake
>> >>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>> >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> >>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>> >>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>> >>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>> >>> www.williamdrake.org
>> >>> ***********************************************
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140928/29f4b36b/attachment-0001.html>