[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Event News

[William Drake]

Hi

Thanks Timothe, this lays a good foundation for a statement we could circulate for support. Could be done in advance of Durban too...

Bill

On May 26, 2013, at 15:56, Timothe Litt <litt at acm.org> wrote:

> Server doesn't want to talk to me.  Here's an edited version
> 
> Events at ICANN over the last year have caused a severe erosion in trust among many ICANN stakeholders.  Specifically, the multi-stakeholder nature of ICANN is being eroded by the 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.   
> 
> The undersigned [groups and] individuals do not all have the same point of view  on many of these issues, and may not i


> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> Timothe Litt
> ACM Distinguished Engineer
> --------------------------
> This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
> if any, on the matters discussed. 
> On 26-May-13 09:20, Avri Doria wrote:
>> On 26 May 2013, at 12:11, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>>>> 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?
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 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: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10NNlZQSoTRoAJdM8ORB_hri14Qehak_B-JogQmfl-gM/edit?usp=sharing
>> 
>> It is open to commenting.  
>> 
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130527/08ce2b3e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss