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

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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



 

 

 

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> 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>
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> 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>
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> 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>
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> http://bit.ly/1k7FDNj

2.       Use expert networking:  <http://bit.ly/1lof1c5>
http://bit.ly/1lof1c5

3.       Get Broad-based input/crowdsource at each stage of decision-making:
<http://bit.ly/1czpNXn> http://bit.ly/1czpNXn

4.       Use Open Data and open contracting:  <http://bit.ly/1jcv3Rt>
http://bit.ly/1jcv3Rt

5.       Experiment with Innovative Voting Techniques:
<http://bit.ly/1nwta2H> http://bit.ly/1nwta2H

6.       Impose Rotating Term Limits:  <http://bit.ly/1nUmkEr>
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:  <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Web:  <http://www.key-systems.net/> www.key-systems.net /
<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.RRPproxy.net
 <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> www.domaindiscount24.com /
<http://www.brandshelter.com/> www.BrandShelter.com
 
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
 <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
 <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> www.twitter.com/key_systems
 
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
 
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
 <http://www.keydrive.lu/> 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:  <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Web:  <http://www.key-systems.net/> www.key-systems.net /
<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.RRPproxy.net
 <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> www.domaindiscount24.com /
<http://www.brandshelter.com/> www.BrandShelter.com
 
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
 <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
 <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> www.twitter.com/key_systems
 
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
 
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
 <http://www.keydrive.lu/> 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.