<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Hi</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks Timothe, this lays a good foundation for a statement we could circulate for support. Could be done in advance of Durban too...</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div><br>On May 26, 2013, at 15:56, Timothe Litt <<a href="mailto:litt@acm.org">litt@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Server doesn't want to talk to me.
Here's an edited version<br>
<br>
<p id="docs-internal-guid-41d5615c-e109-02a1-03a4-c65b9cbfcda2" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial;
font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align:
baseline; background-color: transparent;">Events at ICANN over
the last year have caused a severe erosion in trust among many
ICANN stakeholders. Specifically, </span><span style="color:
rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;
background-color: transparent;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0,
0); font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration:
none; vertical-align: baseline; background-color:
transparent;">the multi-stakeholder nature of ICANN is being
eroded by the </span>manner in ICANN Staff has been making
policy decisions on issues such as the new GTLD program,
Rights Protection Mechanisms, Reservations of Geographic
names, the Trademark Clearinghouse, the Registrar
Accreditation Agreement and the Registry Agreement. It is
unacceptable that ICANN Staff has been announcing policy
decisions rather than allowing the bottom-up decision making
of the multi-stakeholder model. </span></p>
<br>
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size:
15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;
background-color: transparent;"></span>
<p style="line-height: 1.15; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial;
font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align:
baseline; background-color: transparent;">The undersigned
[groups and] individuals do not all have the same point of
view on many of these issues, and may not i</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="moz-cite-prefix"><p style="line-height: 1.15; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial;
font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align:
baseline; background-color: transparent;">agree on the
desired outcomes. But we are all stakeholders who believe
that the developed and evolving multi-stakeholder processes
are essential to ICANN's credibility and ability to govern.
We believe that circumventing these processes damages ICANN
internally, as evidenced by the loss of faith among
participants. It also damages ICANN's global credibility,
which is based on the assertion that its authority for
Internet governance is based on the multi-stakeholder model
attaining consensus. When staff or any other party, in the
name of efficiency bypasses the multi-stakeholder processes,
our trust in ICANN as a multi-stakeholder organization is
diminished. The resulting public disagreements will undermine
the global credibility of ICANN on ALL issues.</span></p>
<br>
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size:
15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;
background-color: transparent;"></span>
<p style="line-height: 1.15; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial;
font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align:
baseline; background-color: transparent;">Although we are
often in conflict over the particular issues, we believe that
the only way to resolve them is within the agreed-upon
multi-stakeholder model. We recognize that it is imperfect,
and are committed to making it work and to adapting to the
consensus outcomes that it produces. Further, all agree and
will vigorously defend the multi-stakeholder processes of
ICANN against capture by ICANN Staff or any other party.</span></p>
<br>
It is imperative that everyone abandon any effort to bypass the
multi-stakeholder consensus process and redirect their energies to
making the best possible policies that serve the interests of all
stakeholders.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.
</pre>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"></pre>
On 26-May-13 09:20, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:A3C1765E-BB4E-4E8C-A147-F61E54073396@ella.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 26 May 2013, at 12:11, William Drake wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In that light, might I suggest as an alternate topic akin to "The Current State of Multistakeholderism in ICANN."
The rejection of our reconsideration review request has stimulated a lot of discussion across various ICANN communities. There are threads on the Registry and NTAG lists, for example, that are extremely supportive of our procedural position. Could this not be an opportunity for us to reach out to some of those who are supportive in other communities, see if they'll pop on a panel for a half hour and have an honest discussion about where we are on MS and where we may be headed? Could this not be an opportunity to demonstrate to the Board the breadth of opposition to the BGC decision and, as well, cultivate our cross community ties?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">One imagines this matter will still be live in July and discussed in Durban. It's not obvious to me that the optimal way to address it is an NCUC workshop with panelists etc., as opposed to a special cross-community meeting with the BGC, or even our standard NCSG-Board meeting for that matter. But if there's greater member interest in going this route or some rather than in doing closed generics, ok we could try. Let's hear from more folks.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
One other possibility (complementary, not alternative) to is to create a statement on this. I have been talking to some in the Registry SG and think it is possible that a statement could be crafted that various SGs, Cs, and individuals could sign onto.
One thing is that it would need to focus on the multistakeholder crisis at ICANN and not on the topics themselves, where we may have disagreements; disagreements we would prefer to handle through the multistakeholder processes.
I have a very rough first draft:
URL: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/10NNlZQSoTRoAJdM8ORB_hri14Qehak_B-JogQmfl-gM/edit?usp=sharing">https://docs.google.com/document/d/10NNlZQSoTRoAJdM8ORB_hri14Qehak_B-JogQmfl-gM/edit?usp=sharing</a>
It is open to commenting.
avri
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Ncuc-discuss mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>