<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Conversation Wrap-Up & Next Steps
It seems Fadi is inviting us to do just that.
http://blog.icann.org/2014/03/balancing-the-tasks-at-hand/
Thanks.
Amr
On Mar 13, 2014, at 12:44 AM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|