[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61

Fri Feb 16 12:05:25 EET 2018

Hi Ayden,

2018-02-16 18:50 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Thanks, Farzaneh-
>
> A lot of food for thought here. On one hand, I very much agree with you. A
> huge +1 from me to this statement: "How do they expect us to be
> meaningfully engaged with various groups when we are under-resourced.
> Community brings ICANN legitimacy, by cutting its funding and weakening its
> participation it will certainly hamper its own legitimacy."
>
> Hand in hand with legitimacy is accountability. I believe it is ultimately
> up to the Board to make sure that we are here truly here speaking up on
> behalf of non-commercial uses and users, because multistakeholderism is key
> to ICANN’s governance model. It is also up to us, but if the Board
> identified a stakeholder group not participating in ICANN policy
> discussions or facilitating ICANN’s stated objective of promoting the
> global public interest, I think it would be remiss if it did not flag this
> and try to address it.
>
>
I don't see why we should raise any issues if we think there are some to
the board. I think Farzaneh indicated why we have to be cautious in
relation to the work on SO/AC accountability. Board challenged groups
accounatbility when we started asking them to be more accountable.

> I think if we are frank we would say that we are struggling with the
> question of accountability. We do not have a code of conduct or enforced
> standards of behaviour, and it's previously been flagged that we have
> constituencies whose Executives are sometimes not making decisions in a
> consistent manner. We have members who no longer meet our eligibility
> criteria, yet they can vote in our elections. To say nothing of the fact
> that we have a constituency whose Executive has a mailing list that is not
> archived, and while to be very clear I am insinuating nothing nefarious, I
> believe that could be argued to contravene section 1.2 b) of our charter
> (Principles for Members and Leaders - Transparency).
>
>
I think we should check first what we have in our charter and what was done
till now. The charter already outlines some expectations in term of
behavior from elected people and people even used a procedure against an
elected officer in the past when they felt there is something wrong. For
membership elgibility, the NCSG EC drafted lately operating procedures for
removing members if they ineligible.
sometimes we don't to create a new things but try to use what we get
already and enforce that. For constituencies status, that is the role of
NCSG EC to review them and I think there was ongoing process on that
matter.
I know that Farzaneh as chair is keen to work on procedures at EC lebel
since membership and constituencies matters under the remit of EC. for the
policy committee, we can work on our own processes (I know tha I promised
draft on that...) with regard to policy and activity within council

We have unique challenges and very few resources. I think Stephanie is
> right to suggest we raise our hand and ask for help. We have a lot on our
> plate at the moment and a part of me thinks, 'we don't have time to get our
> house in order,' but maybe we have to make the time. Let's not leave this
> to the next GNSO Review...
>
>
as I argued before resources and budget issues are different from
accountability matters. I dont believe the board should be asked here. we
need to start from within to work on those issues,such as working on
procedures and processes. didn't we say we have to preserve the bottom-up
model? why are we asking for top-down approach here?
I join Farzaneh on objecting to ask board on this. we will get our house in
order by ourselves.

Best,

Rafik

>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On 16 February 2018 7:20 AM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I am sorry Stephanie, I do not support this question at all. Especially
> how it has been framed. As the co-rapporteur of SOAC Accountability, I have
> seen many times how these discussions can go in the wrong direction of
> blaming the community for whatever is wrong with ICANN. We don't have to
> ask the Board how can we be accountable. We have many mechanisms for that
> and SOAC accountability also has recommendations.
>
>  What we should ask the Board is that, whenever we complain about
> community input not being considered, the Board response would be: but the
> community did not come up with a consensus policy or a response. How do
> they expect us to get involved meaningfully with policy development at
> ICANN when they cut our budget? How do they expect us to be meaningfully
> engaged with various groups when we are under-resourced. Community brings
> ICANN legitimacy, by cutting its funding and weakening its participation it
> will certainly hamper its own legitimacy.We need the Board to be closer to
> the community, understand its needs and create a bridge between ICANN org
> and ICANN community, (yes yes while protecting the corporate interest, we
> know that is their main function).  Board should not see community access
> to resources as a problem but a solution and if it has to make budgetary
> decisions, the community should not be the first group to be affected,
> budget cuts should happen at all levels, and Board should also take steps
> to reduce the costs of its own operation.
>
> We are already working on our accountability.SOAC accountability
> recommendations are on their way. And we already have mechanisms both in
> operating procedure and bylaws to make us accountable. We should see how
> the board is accountable to this community.
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> [observer]
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> (1st message here so hope I'm not pulverized in beam of lava coming from
>> my computer as I speak up about this)
>>
>> As a current Chair, thankfully with administrative support (1, yet there
>> is), (limited) meeting attendance support for the group, I will just note
>> that we do not take lightly our resources currently.
>> There are several criteria put in place for use of resources, previously,
>> during and after the meetings.
>> It takes time for a member to do well on writing, contributing to WGs and
>> many other activities. Participating in meetings accelerates that learning
>> time and yes, CROP activities help immensely too.
>>
>> So I do not see this [hindering volunteer participation] as saving cost
>> measure from any volunteer organization. It is rather a very shortsighted
>> move which can concentrate even further an organization in the hands of
>> those who can buy their ticket.
>>
>> The real reason I came to comment here as that, yes, I am one of those
>> who could  probably be singled out as an example of travel which was
>> allocated and not completed as I won't be with you in ICANN61. That
>> decision was also not taken lightly and the after effects of it just keep
>> coming.
>>
>> So I guess I would only hope that the tone that we debate travel
>> allocation is not only about saving a few pennies but also seeing the
>> organization from a broader perspective. Specific cases or not. CROP or
>> meeting support. There is no other volunteer organization that I know of so
>> narrow minded about discussing support more than ICANN currently
>>
>> And not only the deletion of CROP but its silent assassination after
>> being labelled a success w/out any hint of prior investigation or
>> consultation to the community or announcement is only a prelude of even
>> worse practices to come.
>>
>> Discussing at least the arbitrary decision should be done, at least as
>> preparedness for other arbitrary decisions to come.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Renata
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>
>>> I just send my response to Stephanie at the same time. I am more
>>> cautious about this and won't really support bringing the topic for the
>>> reasons I explained.
>>>
>>> I think there is a conflation of 2 separate issues here: expectations
>>> from elected officers and members in term of behavior and accountability
>>> and the impact of the budget on our activities as SG.
>>>
>>> the former can be discussed, while I would like to understand what are
>>> the specific concerns. I know there were some issues and  I don't want to
>>> single out individuals. I am also worried if there are some general
>>> insinuations substantiated or not. there is enough misunderstanding and so
>>> we need to move here carefully. We raised previously the communication
>>> issues and we are trying to make an improvement here but still to be done.
>>> I am only speaking about the policy part and so PC and councilors, I cannot
>>> speak about other committees or constituencies activities.
>>>
>>> for the budget, I agree we can advise being more carefulness of how we
>>> are using the existing resources.  as I explained to many of you in
>>> private, I think we get too complacent and dependent on ICANN support e.g.
>>> expanded travel support and seeing that we are linking travel support to be
>>> active on PDPs (e.g. using it as an incentive) while the work is mostly
>>> done in working groups and intersessionally .
>>> For councilors support, I am not worried since, in fact, that is at GNSO
>>> council level and not SG. I think we can suggest being cautious for now and
>>> acknowledge that we have now may not be available in few years and think
>>> how we can do better (and also defining priorities). there was the time
>>> that admin work was done by the chair (I was the last chair to do that
>>> before we get admin support :)). Crisis can lead to more creative and
>>> original thinking.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2018-02-16 9:03 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>
>>>> This is an excellent suggestion, Stephanie. I would like to hear what
>>>> suggestions the Board has here for us, too. This is something we really
>>>> need to tackle. And it's something I hope we might be able to table for
>>>> discussion in San Juan as well. We need to talk about the expected standard
>>>> of behaviour for our officers and members, along with the trajectory ICANN
>>>> is moving in and what that could mean for us... We predicted ICANN was
>>>> broke last year, insinuated as much in our Reserve Fund comment, and called
>>>> for cuts to spending, but we haven't insulated ourselves sufficiently from
>>>> these cuts... We are very, very vulnerable at the moment and if we are not
>>>> prudent with our allocation of resources I worry we [non-commercial voices]
>>>> could pay a heavy price. I think Sam made a very insightful comment on this
>>>> topic yesterday on Skype; I'm cc'ing him into this discussion in case he'd
>>>> like to paste his message here for other list subscribers to see, and/or
>>>> expand upon his prediction... I'd certainly like to hear more about the
>>>> 'red flags' we should be looking out for over the coming 12 months...
>>>>
>>>> Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> On 15 February 2018 5:53 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> these are not bad questions.  I think we should ask the Board if they
>>>> have suggestions for greater accountability in our stakeholder group.
>>>> Since they are proposing to cut CROP funding, how do they propose we inform
>>>> our members of the complexity of ICANN policy issues, and ensure they are
>>>> contributing effectively to the MS model on which ICANN depends?
>>>> I think our goals for next year should include greater accountability
>>>> for our actions and expenditures.  $$$ may be going out the window with
>>>> falling registrar revenues, and we may be coming back to a world where
>>>> ICANN did not support us for travel and admin.  And nobody would wave
>>>> goodbye.....
>>>> cheers SP
>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>> Subject:
>>>> Re: [council] Reminder - topics for meeting with ICANN Board at ICANN61
>>>> Date:
>>>> Thu, 15 Feb 2018 22:33:19 +1100
>>>> From:
>>>> Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com> <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
>>>> To:
>>>> Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>>> CC:
>>>> council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>> <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I hope you've returned home happy and healthy after our time in LA.
>>>>
>>>> We're behind in communicating our questions/topics to the Board for
>>>> discussion in San Juan. As yet we've had no suggestions. Here are three
>>>> possibilities to seed the discussion:
>>>>
>>>>    - SSR2 - the Board has stated on various recent occasions that it
>>>>    has 'learned lessons' from its handling of the SSR2-RT pause. What specific
>>>>    lessons have been learned and how will these affect future Board action?
>>>>    - Goals - The Board has asked the various community groups to
>>>>    identify their most relevant longer-term goals. What are the Board's
>>>>    longer-term goals, in view of budgetary and market trends?
>>>>    - The GNSO Council devoted time in January to strategic planning
>>>>    for the year ahead. Taking into account a continuously high volume of work
>>>>    and the FY19 budgetary pressures, we see the need for and benefit of
>>>>    prioritisation. Considering the many activities currently underway in
>>>>    ICANN, which do the Board consider to be top priority? What milestones or
>>>>    achievements is the Board hoping to reach by the end of 2018?
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Heather
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Marika Konings <
>>>> marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Reminder – the GNSO Council leadership team is expected to submit to
>>>>> the ICANN Board proposed topics for the joint meeting at ICANN61. If you
>>>>> have any proposed topics, please share these with the list as soon as
>>>>> possible. Topics are expected to be submitted by 12 February at the latest.
>>>>> The Board has suggested the following two topics for its meeting with the
>>>>> GNSO Council:
>>>>>
>>>>>    - *What are your key goals in 2018? * The Board is interested in
>>>>>    this question to make sure that its own priorities are aligned with the
>>>>>    community’s priorities.
>>>>>    - *What are your most relevant longer-term goals?*  The Board is
>>>>>    interested in this question because discussions about longer-term goals and
>>>>>    strategic planning will commence soon between the community, the Board and
>>>>>    ICANN org.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Marika
>>>>>
>>>>> *Marika Konings*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet
>>>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
>>>>>
>>>>> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org <marika.konings at icann.org>  *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses
>>>>> <http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages
>>>>> <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>. *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> council mailing list
>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180216/5e2fb22b/attachment.htm>