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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi all,

i like the idea of structured/written feedback from the Council as well.  could 
we form a small drafting team to pull a rough outline together over this coming 
weekend so that we’d have a rough high-level draft to carry into Singapore?  
i’d like to join such a gang.

mikey


On Mar 12, 2014, at 4:10 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> All,
>  
> The strategy panels are (as I understand it) intended to inform or 
> potentially inform the further development of the 5 year strategic plan
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/strategic-29oct13-en.htm
>  
> which will lead into the associated operating plans.
>  
> Therefore, I think that a key issue for us will be separating our thinking 
> and responses into two distinct areas:
>  
> a.       Any issues with the formation and execution of the strategy panels
> b.      Any issues with the output of one or more of the strategy panels in 
> so far as they may impact the 5 yr strategic plan
>  
> The more I hear, the more it seems appropriate for us to feed structured 
> (written) comment from the Council in relation to the strategy panels, in 
> particular responding to the specific output/s of the MSI panel.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> --
>  
> Note:
>  
> In the current (draft) operating plan for FY15, it already envisages 
> “optimisation of the policy development process” although I have to say, I am 
> not sure what this means
> See bullet 1 under item 4.
>  
> Slide 9, FY15 Draft Operating plan and budget process
> <image001.png>
>  
>  
>  
> From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 12 March 2014 20:58
> To: Volker Greimann
> Cc: Klaus Stoll; jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Conversation Wrap-Up & Next Steps
>  
> Hi,
>  
> For some reason, I just don’t understand the danger this panel is posing. It 
> reads a lot to me like the opinion of someone who is largely uninformed on 
> the nature of the multistakeholder bottom-up consensus building nature of the 
> GNSO processes, and what it takes to make changes to them. Does anyone here 
> actually believe that radical changes in GNSO operating procedures can be 
> unilaterally imposed by Fadi or the ICANN BoDs because the GovLab said so??
>  
> I really would like to hear concerns based on concrete actions you all feel 
> might actually take place. Better yet…, instead of speculating, why not ask 
> the ICANN BoDs to clear this up once and for all? In BA, the phrase 
> “non-binding Board action” was floated around, and I have no idea what a 
> non-binding Board action is.
>  
> I certainly feel that we, the GNSO Council, should do our duty of managing 
> the GNSO's PDP in accordance with the ICANN by-laws, the PDP manual and the 
> WG guidelines. We’ve been elected by our stakeholder groups and 
> constituencies to do just that, and so far, I don’t see an impending assault. 
> I’ve gone through the MSI Panel report and some of the proposals (not all of 
> them), and I am lead to believe that the authors are in no way experts. In 
> fact, ICANN aside, they seem to have a great deal of misguided assumptions on 
> the principles of the ethnography of multistakeholder organisations, and how 
> the introduction of collaborative tools influences them.
>  
> Volker makes some very logical observations:
>  
> On Mar 12, 2014, at 3:41 PM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
>  
> [SNIP]
>  
> 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.
>  
> Exactly…, and they make that completely unfounded assumption that the 
> introduction of more collaborative tools will achieve more global engagement. 
> Perfectly ridiculous.
> 
> 
> > 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.
>  
> No way I’m going to argue with you on that one!! :) I would also add to that 
> - encouraging the trend of commissioning studies such as the recent WHOIS 
> studies provided that the community sets the terms of reference.
> 
> 
> > 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.
>  
> True…, but apparently the “experts” haven’t heard what you’ve heard.
> 
> 
> > 4.       Use Open Data and open contracting: http://bit.ly/1jcv3Rt
> Is this not already in place?
>  
> Yes again, but the “experts” don’t seem to know how to find the contracts 
> ICANN has with its contracted parties, nor understand how they came to be.
> 
> 
> > 5.       Experiment with Innovative Voting Techniques: http://bit.ly/1nwta2H
> This would be a topic for GNSO reform/innovation.
>  
> If you mean how the GNSO is structured, maybe. But my understanding was that 
> they not only recommend that the GNSO’s decision-making guidelines be 
> changed, but also decision-making guidelines on the stakeholder group and 
> constituency levels currently defined in their respective charters/by-laws. I 
> just don’t see that happening because they said so.
> 
> 
> >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.
>  
> Sure, but by definition, that means public comment and everyone is entitled 
> to express an opinion.
>  
> I feel that if we want to take a serious step to settle the issue of 
> (specifically) this panel, we need a clear answer from Fadi and the ICANN 
> Board on what their intentions are regarding the proposals being made. For 
> example, if they are in any way related to the work of the SIC and the 
> forthcoming GNSO review, I would like to know about it. My understanding is 
> that the last GNSO review was initiated by the GNSO Council as opposed to the 
> upcoming one, which will be a Board-initiated review. Getting some answers 
> would provide the context we need to decide the appropriate position we need 
> to take.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Amr
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 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.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)