<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Thanks Michael,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I appreciate the statement but may be missing some of the substance to be honest.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I had a read of the NCUC EC archives and it appears that in a number of cases that deliberations or items are bring brought to the EC at the last minute as ‘done deals’ this does indicate that there
seems to be a lot of offlist work being done which is not in keeping with the history of how the EC list was treated and used. Indeed even the deliberations piece in the bylaws is slightly concerning to me as that represents a huge change from the past which
we can see by going back in the list history.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I’ll also note that my interest in this is purely in the name of ensuring that we in NCUC set the standard for the rest of the community, and if I read through the other messages on this ncuc-discuss
list here today I see that there are a lot of accusations flying around. Lets stick to the facts here and I hope that the whole EC can make a commitment to really making more of an effort to ensure all communications are on list, and if they are taken offlist
at any point it needs to be very clearly documented the justification for why, and that that is recorded on list, this way we move away from a fragmented record.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">And if anyone wants to claim that I was wasting peoples time with this and that I don’t understand the workload of being a volunteer at NCUC I’ll let my history and track record speak for itself.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">-Thanks again<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">James<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 12 June 2018 13:39<br>
<b>To:</b> James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net><br>
<b>Cc:</b> NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Statement on Transparency and Off-list Communication<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The statement was approved by a majority of the EC - four in favour, one opposed, one did not vote.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:40 AM, James Gannon <<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net" target="_blank">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-James<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 12 Jun 2018, at 01:34, Michael Karanicolas <<a href="mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com" target="_blank">mkaranicolas@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi all,<br>
<br>
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>
<br>
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>
<br>
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" target="_blank">
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>
<br>
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>
<br>
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>
<br>
We look forward to the conversation.<br>
<br>
The NCUC Executive Committee<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>