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

Mon Sep 29 15:24:53 EEST 2014

Hi,

I will send to Keith that we are signing the statement, there is no problem
here.
and I will send a note to the public comment.

Rafik

2014-09-29 0:21 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>:

> I thought we were going to send a note saying we endorse the stmt.  We can
> probably still do that IF we do it TODAY.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
>
> On Sep 28, 2014, at 4:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> 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/20140929/c9b0f2b0/attachment-0001.html>