<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
Thanks for this Michael, I appreciate the efforts, before I respond to the substance, can you just confirm my understanding that this is not an approved statement of the whole Executive Committee?
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">-James<br class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 12 Jun 2018, at 01:34, Michael Karanicolas <<a href="mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com" class="">mkaranicolas@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Hi all,<br class="">
<br class="">
The following is a statement which EC members developed over the past two days, and have now voted to forward to our the list for discussion:<br class="">
<br class="">
First off, we can confirm that we sometimes use off-list methods to communicate with one another, both individually and at times, as a group. We do not believe this represents a violation of our bylaws or operating procedures. Indeed, the transparency section
of our bylaws (section XII(a)) specifically contemplates instances where information may need to be withheld, such as where its disclosure would negatively impact our engagement with a policy under discussion. In other instances, we may use offlist communications
for more informal or social chatter, unrelated to the NCUC decision-making process, or to try and get the attention of a person where on-list communications are going unanswered.<br class="">
<br class="">
EC deliberations take place on-list. But, when juggling multiple communication tracks, it is inevitable that there can be some overlap, or instances where a communication that should be made on-list is made using an external service. That was the case with
regards to the latest IGF proposal, where some of the reviewing feedback was given via Skype. In part, this was due to the quick turnaround of the proposal, and the pending deadline (for a full timeline of how the IGF proposal was developed, please see the
discussion on the NCUC-Discuss list <a href="https://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2018-June/044315.html" class="">
here</a>). It is worth noting that, in this case, substantially identical feedback was sent to the ExComm list at the same time, in order to ensure that it was documented.<br class="">
<br class="">
Nonetheless, we acknowledge that the use of off-list communication is a problem. In order to remedy it, one suggestion would be for us to develop and approve guidelines for EC communications, and rules around their archiving and disclosure (including, potentially,
any off-list communications about the IGF proposal which triggered this discussion). These could potentially be incorporated into our operating procedures. If members feel that is a good idea – we would be happy to develop a draft for discussion.<br class="">
<br class="">
Transparency and accountability are values that we hold dear and, in many cases, are active advocates for across the ICANN communities. The challenge of managing formal and informal avenues of communication is a common one across the transparency sector, particularly
with the expanding diversity of communications tools and devices that we now have available. We are committed to doing better, and to working harder to foster trust between the EC and its constituents. As always, we welcome constructive feedback.<br class="">
<br class="">
We look forward to the conversation.<br class="">
<br class="">
The NCUC Executive Committee<br class="">
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" class="">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br class="">
https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</body>
</html>