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

[Akinremi Peter Taiwo]

I think there is a need as a group to understand diplomatic tone in
relating with each other.  While we are trying to uphold values and
principles, let us be far away from creating division among ourselves.  We
have a lot of people on the list watching and decoding tone and reactions
from the body of our write up. NCSG and NCUC have a lot at hand to do, so
let's channel our energy to defend both interest.  I think NCSG and NCUC
policy course should not only focused on writing effective public comment
for ICANN submission but on how our responses on the list respect each
other.

Regards.
Peter.

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 2:47 PM Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> I don't see the need to over-engineer this with a "policy on off-list vs
> on-list communications". Why do we need a policy here - and what is the
> point of an operating procedure, when this EC frequently disregards the
> operating procedures that we already have? This seems to me like an excuse
> to justify present poor judgement.
>
> What would you say if a government agency shredded all its records, and
> then taxpayers objected, and the agency tried to waste a few years
> developing a policy on what must be preserved vs what must not be? Don't
> waste our time. Just follow the bylaws.
>
> Section XII outlines what must be public and what cannot be communicated
> on a publicly archived mailing list. The key principle in this part of the
> bylaws is that we are transparent by default, with off-list discussions the
> exception to the rule ("The NCUC is committed to robust transparency and
> consultation, and strives to make its activities open to the public
> whenever possible, subject only to reasonable exceptions in line with the
> interests of the Constituency.")
>
> If you are taking something off-list every few days (which the EC is), and
> previous EC never did, even when handling the same mundane issue, perhaps
> the conversation could instead be happening out in the open.
>
> Regards, ​Ayden Férdeline
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>
> On 14 June 2018 2:12 AM, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > ​​
> >
> > Hi James,
> >
> > Speaking just for myself (though my fellow ECs are very welcome to add
> >
> > their voices):
> >
> > I don't know that I can comment on the broader or longer term trends -
> >
> > being a relative newcomer to both the EC and, really, to ICANN as a
> >
> > whole - but I agree with you that there is a problem. I also agree
> >
> > that this is an important area of discussion, and agree with
> >
> > everything you said regarding the NCUC setting a standard for the
> >
> > community. I'm probably more sensitive to this than most, given that
> >
> > my interactions at ICANN frequently revolve around promoting
> >
> > transparency, and these arguments are obviously undercut if our
> >
> > processes are not sufficiently transparent.
> >
> > So - if we agree that there's a problem - how do we improve things?
> >
> > The email was light on substance because it's meant to be opening a
> >
> > conversation about fixing the problem - as opposed to presenting a
> >
> > readymade solution. We could have just gone out and drafted a new
> >
> > policy on this stuff ourselves, of course, and circulated it for
> >
> > approval. This would have been simpler and easier. But that sort of
> >
> > flies in the face of the exact problem we're meant to be addressing -
> >
> > an opaque process, a lack of consultation, etc.
> >
> > So - the previous email was intended to try and tee up a conversation
> >
> > to develop solutions based on community feedback: do people think a
> >
> > policy on off-list vs on-list communications is the right avenue
> >
> > forward? If so, what should that cover, and what form should it take?
> >
> > If not - how should we address this?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:49 PM, James Gannon james at cyberinvasion.net
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Michael,
> > >
> > > I appreciate the statement but may be missing some of the substance to
> be
> > >
> > > honest.
> > >
> > > I had a read of the NCUC EC archives and it appears that in a number of
> > >
> > > cases that deliberations or items are bring brought to the EC at the
> last
> > >
> > > minute as ‘done deals’ this does indicate that there seems to be a lot
> of
> > >
> > > offlist work being done which is not in keeping with the history of
> how the
> > >
> > > EC list was treated and used. Indeed even the deliberations piece in
> the
> > >
> > > bylaws is slightly concerning to me as that represents a huge change
> from
> > >
> > > the past which we can see by going back in the list history.
> > >
> > > I’ll also note that my interest in this is purely in the name of
> ensuring
> > >
> > > that we in NCUC set the standard for the rest of the community, and if
> I
> > >
> > > read through the other messages on this ncuc-discuss list here today I
> see
> > >
> > > that there are a lot of accusations flying around. Lets stick to the
> facts
> > >
> > > here and I hope that the whole EC can make a commitment to really
> making
> > >
> > > more of an effort to ensure all communications are on list, and if
> they are
> > >
> > > taken offlist at any point it needs to be very clearly documented the
> > >
> > > justification for why, and that that is recorded on list, this way we
> move
> > >
> > > away from a fragmented record.
> > >
> > > And if anyone wants to claim that I was wasting peoples time with this
> and
> > >
> > > that I don’t understand the workload of being a volunteer at NCUC I’ll
> let
> > >
> > > my history and track record speak for itself.
> > >
> > > -Thanks again
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > From: Michael Karanicolas mkaranicolas at gmail.com
> > >
> > > Sent: 12 June 2018 13:39
> > >
> > > To: James Gannon james at cyberinvasion.net
> > >
> > > Cc: NCUC-discuss ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Statement on Transparency and Off-list
> > >
> > > Communication
> > >
> > > 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). 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
> >
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20180618/bf10c159/attachment.html>