ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< 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 >>>