[NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting with ICANN CEO

[Mueller, Milton L]

Chair Badii
You did a very good job of compiling a lot of opinions and viewpoints into this. Some observations below:

-we  would like to know more about steps that ICANN org will take to live up to the new human rights core value if the FOI is approved and this could be a discussion in Copenhagen. NCUC members are ready to help ICANN org with taking initiatives to live up to HR core value.

MM: Why not change this into a simpler, more concrete and implementable suggestion? Just ask him to discuss it with us on constituency day in Copenhagen.

My understanding is that the HR commitments are meaningless unless they are “required by applicable law,” and this could lead to a very complex, wandering and ultimately useless discussion that could eat up your entire 30 minutes. I would not prioritize that discussion. Recommend moving it to a time and place when we can actually get into it.

- that consensus policy continues to be undermined by ICANN counsel and staff. We are seeing  work which ignores and shunts aside Consensus Policies - particularly those balances and compromises that protect noncommercial registrants and especially noncommercial speech, free expression and trademark fair use online - in other areas as well. It makes it very difficult and frustrating for volunteers to spend hundreds of hours negotiating policies that are then thrown out, limited or circumvented by other means available to ICANN.

MM: I can see quickly how he will respond: he will ask for specifics. In what specific ways is ICANN counsel and staff undermining consensus policy? Unless you have readily available answers this will not go well.

- I will make the point why it is absolutely essential that the GNSO continue to be structured in a way that balances commercial and noncommercial and contracted and non-contracted parties, and why board and GAC interference with GNSO consensus policies after the fact is a bad thing.

MM: +1000

- The travel ban and its effect on traveling to ICANN meetings- We think ICANN should have taken a stronger stand in objecting the travel ban. We also think that ICANN should focus on how it can mitigate the harm that could be potentially done on participation of ICANN community and ICANN org in ICANN meeting

MM: again I don’t understand why we are approaching an issue like this in a confrontational way (ICANN should have taken a stronger stand”). This is an issue where we and ICANN board, staff and community all agree. Why not be more positive and just ask HOW we can all take a stronger and more effective stand for keeping our meetings free and open?

- At present, some members who are involved with various policy developing groups have observed that their work is undermined by ICANN org and sometimes other groups within ICANN governance.  We want to investigate opportunities and channels for "enhanced cooperation" among stakeholders and constituencies based on an understanding that without a strong non-commercial constituency/civil society ICANN will fail to implement its mission.

MM: How is the first part of this different from the second question? Are you prepared with the specifics?

- Diversity and international community participation especially from developing countries in ICANN meetings as well as their participation in policy development are important for us and we think that choosing ICANN location should be done with care and understanding diversity needs.

MM: +100

- We want ICANN to discuss and inform the community about a pressing issue: Given the political transition with the new administration, we want to know how ICANN  envision its relationship with the Department of Commerce going forward.

MM: What? I strongly oppose this question. There is no relationship with the Commerce Department now. This is NOT a ‘pressing issue” at the present time. Where did this idea come from? Complete waste of time – and bad karma – to attempt to have a séance to communicate with old ghosts.

and I will Invite him to constituency day

MM: Again, why not do that first in connection with the HR question?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170211/ac511874/attachment-0002.html>