[NCUC-DISCUSS] Statement on Transparency and Off-list Communication

[Michael Karanicolas]

The statement was approved by a majority of the EC - four in favour, one
opposed, one did not vote.

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:40 AM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

> 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?
>
> -James
>
> On 12 Jun 2018, at 01:34, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> 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:
>
> 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.
>
> 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 here
> <https://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2018-June/044315.html>).
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> We look forward to the conversation.
>
> The NCUC Executive Committee
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://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/20180612/45096afb/attachment.html>