Re: [council] FW: Conversation Wrap-Up & Next Steps

[Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Jonathan, Dear fellow council members

Greetings and Thanks for the update Jonathan!.

I do not know how the other Councillors feel, but I find the 
developments and the attitudes displayed by this Panel quite alarming as 
it just simply rides roughshod over the role and function of the GNSO at 
least as far as I understand them. My simple question is: "Should the 
GNSO not take stronger measures in order to ensure that the GNSO and the 
multi stakeholder model is not undermined and replaced by "expert" 
panels. I think we should go to extraordinary measures to defend the 
multi stakeholder model, imperfect as it is. We owe it to our 
constituencies and those who voted for us. Talking to the Board about 
it, participating in meetings with the Panel whose outcome is pre 
determined and nobody really listening, does not seem enough to me at 
this moment. They just will do what they want to do if they are not 
forced to listen.  It might be time to man and women and barricades 
against the expert panel hordes? Is the GNSO such a push over that it 
takes just some ill informed, but well funded, academics to render it 
impotent? I hope not! Our position should be: either everything that is 
recommended and implemented by any of the panels goes through the full 
GNSO procedures, or the GNSO steps down as it has lost his function. I 
know some say that the recommendations will go through the GNSO pdp, but 
the words, attitudes and actions of the panels clearly indicate otherwise.
I sincerely hope that it is the case that I am completely wrong and over 
reacting at this point, because that would mean one huge problem less.
Yours

Klaus

On 3/5/2014 12:11 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
> All,
>
> In discussion with Beth Novek and colleagues from the Governance Lab 
> last week, a suggestion emerged that we could potentially narrow down 
> the list of MSI Panel proposals for more detailed discussion.
> It is not yet 100% clear to me as to whether or not we will be able to 
> meet with one or more of the team from the Gov Lab in Singapore but it 
> seems likely and, in any event, it's useful to consider how we might 
> respond to the output of the panel, in particular where it seems to 
> link most closely with our own work.  We discussed condensing their 
> work into a most relevant sub-set for further discussion
> From their perspective and having made themselves aware of the work of 
> the GNSO, the suggested sub-set (from them) for further condensation 
> is as follows:
> 1.Move from "Stakeholder" engagement to Global Engagement: 
> http://bit.ly/1k7FDNj
> 2.Use expert networking: http://bit.ly/1lof1c5
>
> 3.Get Broad-based input/crowdsource at each stage of decision-making: 
> http://bit.ly/1czpNXn
> 4.Use Open Data and open contracting: http://bit.ly/1jcv3Rt
>
> 5.Experiment with Innovative Voting Techniques: http://bit.ly/1nwta2H
>
> 6.Impose Rotating Term Limits: http://bit.ly/1nUmkEr
>
> I also talked with the Gov Lab people about considering the above 
> proposals through a (non-exhaustive) list of criteria as follows:
> A.Is the proposal relevant to us?
>
> B.Is it currently applicable to our work?
>
> C.How could the proposal be modified/amended/advanced to be applicable 
> or more applicable to our work?
> D.How might we pilot/test these proposals in order to determine 
> whether and how the proposal could be a useful amendment or reform for 
> ICANN?
> None of this pre-supposes that this work was commissioned, initiated 
> or executed in a way which we consider optimal.
> It simply takes a "we are where we are" view of the work and 
> recognises that we have the opportunity to potentially engage with the 
> team that undertook the work.
> In addition, we will still have the opportunity to provide formal 
> public comment on this and engage through any other applicable forums 
> at the ICANN meeting in Singapore.
> Thoughts or input welcome.
>
> Jonathan