[NCUC-DISCUSS] Questions and talking points for ICANN CEO

Tue Aug 28 15:36:19 CEST 2018

We seem to have this conversation at least twice a year. There has never been a consensus that the Intersessional should be cancelled. There is a small minority of members who do not support its continuation, and there is a larger number of members who chime in to support it. No one has said it is perfect; everyone agrees it could be improved.

We simply do not have a position on the Intersessional; our silence does not mean the NCSG does not support its continuation. It means we currently have no position.

> Wrong delegates werent invited, the leaders of each constituency and stakeholder group were sent. As it was with each year.  You are planning to eliminate  some of the leaders?

Yes. I have said for two years now that it does not necessarily make sense to invite leaders to the Intersessional. We certainly need the Chair of each Stakeholder Group/Constituency there, but does it always make sense to have other leaders there? Maybe, maybe not - I think we should be looking to invite members who are not yet in leadership positions but whom have the potential to grow into one.

We need to radically reimagine the Intersessional if we want it to improve.

Also, even if the NCSG had a position on the Intersessional (and it doesn’t), this does not preclude the NCUC from having its own position on the Intersessional. We have seen this year that the NCUC has taken positions on issues, releasing its own statements, even where they run contrary to the NCSG position.

So I would like to understand why the NCUC Chair does not support the Intersessional continuing.

—Ayden

> On 28 Aug 2018, at 14:48, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> They said that because I said on the PC list that NCSG position was hold it every other year. We had this conversation on NCSG mailing list where you had a paragraph in support of holding intersessional and we objected and said we should say every other year. But you decided to delete that paragraph altogether.
> Wrong delegates werent invited, the leaders of each constituency and stakeholder group were sent. As it was with each year.  You are planning to eliminate  some of the leaders?
>
> I want to know what the metrics of success is. If it’s concrete outcomes and a plan for the next year you did non of that in Iceland.
>
> A leadership change does not necessarily mean you will get better delegates this time. It actually means you will have less experienced leaders to attend a highly charged meeting with no knowledge of the dynamics of csg and ncsg.
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 3:35 AM Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
>> This is the NCUC list, not the NCSG list.
>>
>> The NCUC has not had its elections yet, so there may well be a leadership change.
>>
>> I agree that this year’s Intersessional was not effective, but others have been. The 2017 Intersessional, for instance, was successful. We need to look at why that was, and take the best practices from 2017 forward, not give up because this year’s meeting was low on outcomes. In part I think it was low on outcomes because the wrong delegates were invited.
>>
>> At the NCSG, NCUC, and NPOC levels we need to have a conversation around who is invited to the Intersessional; I do not think it necessarily makes sense to invite ‘leaders’. I think we should be inviting a mixture of those with skills to share and those with skills to learn.
>>
>> At stake here is also the principle of membership consultation. The NCUC Executive Committee, as evidenced on its list, has decided to reject the funding for an Intersessional in 2019 without first consulting with NCUC members. This is unacceptable.
>>
>> To claim it is following an NCSG position is bizarre because all of the NCUC EC are subscribed to the NCSG-Discuss list; have they seen a recent conversation on the merits of the Intersessional? Because I haven’t. The last conversation I could find through searching the archives was last year where there was widespread support for the Intersessional.
>>
>> Funding can certainly be rejected, but it should only be rejected after we - the members - have been consulted. This is the crux of my argument here.
>>
>> And because this is the NCUC list and I have directed my comment to the NCUC Chair, I would like to hear from Renata as to how she reconciles the fact that she is asking the CEO for resources for capacity building when she has just turned down funding that was allocated to the NCUC for an Intersessional whose prime focus for 2019 could be capacity building.
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>> On 28 Aug 2018, at 08:21, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What leadership change? Only the chair will change the newly elected council members been already a part of the delegation. You had a chance to fix it last year as well by attending the planning meetings and being more active. No one here had attended all the calls:[https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/Intersessional+2018+-+Planning+Call+details%2C+Recordings%2C+Transcripts ](https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/Intersessional+2018+-+Planning+Call+details%2C+Recordings%2C+Transcripts)
>>>
>>> And even attendance in planning is not sufficient. it's not a three month or one month fix, you need to work with CSG throughout the year and then have a meeting with them. Which I don't believe anyone has done on this thread.
>>>
>>> It's a waste of resource and staff work so hard and no one answers their emails or read their reports or contribute substantively. It did not change last year, it won't change next year either. But if agreed on having it this year, I hope these exchanges make you more determined to at least make it a bit worthwhile.
>>>
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:20 AM Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We will have new leaders by next year, let’s try to work with them and fix what can be fixed. I support the International for 2019 and will only have an opinion after this one. I never attended any in the past.
>>>>
>>>> -----------------
>>>> Arsène Tungali,
>>>> about.me/ArseneTungali
>>>> +243 993810967
>>>> GPG: 523644A0
>>>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 28, 2018, at 5:15 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I support trying to fix it.  I was looking forward to it this year and would have appreciated voicing my opinions on how to use it.  I appreciate the requirement to meet with the BC, although I have no illusions about them wanting to hang out with us.  We still learn from them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2018-08-27 18:41, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a few people who do not support the continuation of the Intersessional, however a majority of the 2018 delegates rated it in its evaluation as being valuable and serving a purpose. There is not a formal NCSG position on the Intersessional, nor have we discussed the topic on the NCSG/NCUC mailing lists recently. The last time the topic was raised on our list, from what I recall, there was widespread support for its continuation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28 Aug 2018, at 00:33, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had the impression that we did. Tatiana, Rafik and I are in favor of every other year. I'll see if other pc members have an opinion but this was also discussed on the list. I believe it should be done every other year. Framing intersessional as a capacity building program is strange to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most members don't know what is going on in intersessional to have an opinion since it is for the leaders. And no its not upon us to make it better.. Year after year we tried and didn't work out. And I spent a lot of time and energy last year with the planning meeting etc. Doesn't work out. Only a handful of people are engaged with various matters and can speak up in these meetings. We don't need it every year. I have gotten most of the procedures done we needed through emails. Why do we have to meet with CSG every year? To say what we disagree on? We sure do know that. To work on NCPH stuff? We can get them done via email.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I look at the NCPH mailing list and it looks very empty. Staff kept asking us for things and we responded briefly or rarely. It's another burden  On a bunch of volunteers. NCPH is not like council strategic meeting. Council members have to be involved with everything and have to work together. Ncsg and csg leaders don't in many respect and it leads to not having meaningful conversation. No concrete outcome has come out of any intersessional to date.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 6:20 PM Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With regards to Intersession, NCUC EC has only discussed it in NCUC EC
>>>>>>>>> list yet but the consensus was to follow PC NCSG position.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The NCSG PC does not have a position on the Intersessional.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 28 Aug 2018, at 00:16, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We just had the call, it was indeed quite interesting and I'll send
>>>>>>>>> the notes soon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With regards to Intersession, NCUC EC has only discussed it in NCUC EC
>>>>>>>>> list yet but the consensus was to follow PC NCSG position.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Renata
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, Renata. I look forward to reviewing your call notes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am curious as to what you will ask the CEO about capacity building when the NCUC has recently opposed the 2019 Intersessional.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There was confirmed funding in the budget for the 2019 Intersessional and this represented an excellent opportunity for the NCUC to engage in internal capacity development.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am surprised that this funding was declined without first consulting with NCUC members. If the NCSG Finance Committee was consulted, I do not see any indication on their mailing list. In any case, I believe this decision should have been left to the new Executive Committee to make, and should have only been made after consulting with NCUC members.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Intersessional is what we make it. If it didn’t work this year, we should fix it for next year. To simply throw away the funding that was confirmed and allocated in the budget is, in my view, a dereliction of duty and will only cause the NCUC harm.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I understand the thinking is, we will ask for the funding again in 2020. The Intersessional is currently a part of the core budget; if not used, the question in 2020 will be, why do we need the funding if you didn’t need it last year? I find it hard to imagine the funding will ever be made available again if turned down for 2019.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am disappointed that decisions to do with resources are being made without first consulting with NCUC members. I ask that this please change. Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Aug 2018, at 21:19, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your responses to this. Call will be soon and I'll also
>>>>>>>>>>> use some of the notes of the previous discussions our members
>>>>>>>>>>> contributed in NCSG.
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think we'll have a time to approach leadership renewal other
>>>>>>>>>>> than an update only.
>>>>>>>>>>> I will bring up the capacity buidling and I guess there will be lots
>>>>>>>>>>> to listen to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Renata
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 4:39 AM, Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chair,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the late response, the already identified talking points look
>>>>>>>>>>>> alright to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> However my addition to the talking point around Capacity Building will be to
>>>>>>>>>>>> encourage other stakeholders in ICANN to engage NCUC in their different
>>>>>>>>>>>> region actively.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Benjamin
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 10:02 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos
>>>>>>>>>>>> <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any points you think should be considered by Renata in this call other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the ones listed by her ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Implementation of our new bylaws - Projects ongoing and challenges
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on initiatives which could support more policy work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Capacity building budget cuts - Results and planning for FY19
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - NCUC Leadership renewal - Noting that new leadership will be briefed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on ongoing processes and will align goals with ICANN Org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruna
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Em seg, 20 de ago de 2018 às 16:03, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <raquino at gmail.com> escreveu:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCUC Chair will have a phone meeting with ICANN CEO on Aug 27th.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please send in your suggestions for questions and talking points.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember each Constituency gets such meeting so some points which NCSG
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may already be discussing you should weigh in whether it is important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for NCUC to reinforce or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are the points I thought we could bring up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Implementation of our new bylaws - Projects ongoing and challenges
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on initiatives which could support more policy work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Capacity building budget cuts - Results and planning for FY19
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - NCUC Leadership renewal - Noting that new leadership will be briefed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on ongoing processes and will align goals with ICANN Org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Renata
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruna Martins dos Santos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @boomartins
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
> --
>
> Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20180828/19785be7/attachment.html>