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

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Klaus,

you aptly summarized many of my concers as well.

> 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
With regard to the various recommendations:

>  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
The current stakeholder engagement model provides some form of balance 
of interests and promotes cooperation and compromise solutions. Global 
engagement carries the danger of blurring the lines and favoring those 
who have the funds or time to contribute most and drowning out "lesser" 
voices. As a matter of fact, the public comment phases already provide a 
forum for global engagement and for parties independant of the existing 
stakeholder groups to make their voices heard.
> 2.Use expert networking: http://bit.ly/1lof1c5
This is one I am actually more inclined to support than others, mostly 
because this is something the ICANN community has already been saying 
for ages. ICANN needs to be more inclusive of expert opinion. The most 
recent example is the failure of ICANN staff to grasp the concept of 
European data protection law and their attempts to negotiate what the 
law actually means. That said, as we knew this already, this 
recommendation is not really news, but if it helps ICANN understand, I 
am all for it.
> 3.Get Broad-based input/crowdsource at each stage of decision-making: 
http://bit.ly/1czpNXn
Last I heard the public comment forums, ICANN participation and PDP 
participation were not exclusive to ICANN stakeholder groups.
> 4.Use Open Data and open contracting: http://bit.ly/1jcv3Rt
Is this not already in place?
> 5.Experiment with Innovative Voting Techniques: http://bit.ly/1nwta2H
This would be a topic for GNSO reform/innovation.
>6.Impose Rotating Term Limits: http://bit.ly/1nUmkEr

- This reminds me of the Russian shuffle: Putin-Medvedev-Putin
While I agree that ICANN needs to be more inclusive and outreach remains 
one of its weak points, I am not sure Rotating Term Limits are the 
solution.

All in all, I still think that reform of ICANN should come from within.


Volker


> 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
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede 
Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist 
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per 
E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the 
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.