[NCUC-DISCUSS] Fadi's strategy panels

[Kathy Kleiman]

I agree with Avri that we ignore these new panels at our peril. The EWG 
is our history: where we mix true experts with an unbalanced set of 
well-known ICANN advocates committed to changing policy in their 
interest, we wind up with disastrous results.
Best,
Kathy
  :
> Hi,
>
> I think we ignore them at our peril.  I doubt they will go away.
>
> Just like the EWG, it was supposed to be advisory, but as time goes on, it become more and the control point on all things whois derivative.  Once the report is out, it will be almost impossible to not get stuck with its global collections and publication of information that should be private.
>
> Same thing with these the FSP.  Just you watch, a recommendation will come from the so-called multistakeholder experts and there will be hardly a breath before we find elements of those recommendation approved by the Board and in implementation.
>
> Fadi made it quite clear that he does not support the bottom-up model and that he prefers something more like a middle in/out model.  This is not necessarily an invalid way to create a multistakeholder model, but it is not the guarantee of ICANN with its bottom-up model.
>
> avri
>
> EWG  Expert Working Group -
> FSP - Fadi Strategy Panel
>
>
> On 16 Oct 2013, at 14:48, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>> Ignore them, and they will go away.
>>
>> These panels not only have no legitimacy, there is really no clear explanation for why we need them and what they will do that meets a need defined by CANN's actual constituencies and communities.
>>
>> The idea that a group of 6 people led by someone who has never spent a minute in ICANN's process or in the formulation or analysis of DNS policy is going to make major reforms in process strikes me as especially ridiculous.
>>
>> --MM
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Jorge Amodio
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 5:06 AM
>> To: Avri Doria
>> Cc: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fadi's strategy panels
>>
>>
>> I agree. Fadi is going way too far from his role as CEO
>>
>> -Jorge
>>
>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> i thought people volunteered and where chosen as individuals.
>>>
>>> This is not  a proper ICANN multistakeholder process, this is a president's blue ribbon panel by a different name.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>> On 15 Oct 2013, at 15:02, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if people have been invited in their personal capacities (in
>>>> which case I assume Icann will foot the bill) or as reps of their
>>>> organizations/constituencies?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131017/84a57bb7/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