[NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting with CEO.

Mon Jun 3 23:36:23 CEST 2019

Hi,

Thanks Bruna.

I would like to go back to the MSH model discussion and add another point
to Tanya's suggestion.

One of the things that is still unclear is how this MSH governance will go
forward. As the Issues List document suggests, the "ICANN Board posed
questions to the ICANN community at ICANN63 about how the multistakeholder
model can be made more effective without compromising our bottom-up and
inclusive decision-making process". In addition to the concerns over the
"reform before implementation", it would be helpful to hear from Goran how
he sees the next steps (structuration of the work plan for this strategic
objective#2) and what is the understanding of "effectiveness" we're aiming
for here. Defining an issues list and developing a work plan does not
directly translate into the path towards making governance more effective.

All the best,

*Louise Marie Hurel*

Research and Project Development Cybersecurity and Digital Liberties
Programme | Igarapé Institute

Publications
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Louise_Marie_Hurel/publications>
Skype: louise.dias
louise at igarape.org.br
louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com

On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 21:39, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Just with regard to ATRT3 - there's not a whole lot to report back on at
> the moment in order to inform this conversation, since we're only a few
> weeks in, are still wrapping up the scoping stage, so there hasn't been a
> lot of progress in diving into the review itself. However, I would note
> that implementation of previous reviews is something we're meant to be
> looking at fairly closely, and I think that would be a good area to raise
> with the CEO directly as well, as that ties nicely back to the original
> issue as Tatiana framed it, especially around where recommendations don't
> get implemented, or get dragged out for years, or otherwise meet forms of
> institutional resistance.
>
> Happy to chat further.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 3:59 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos <
> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Tanya,
>>
>> Thank you for your email, I was already considering including this topic
>> in my talking points as in the previous call NCUC had with Goran we talked
>> a bit about his views about this consultation/moment.
>>
>> At the moment, both me and Lou referenced Stephanies conversation with
>> him about the role of CS within ICANN, as well as if the MS model  could be
>> improved and NCUC role in all these discussions. To this question, he
>> replied by mentioning that his work has always been related to "*strengthen
>> and improve relations with civil society groups. And that he felt that this
>> was demonstrated with ICANN’s work around developing the Temp Spec. ICANN’s
>> previous discussions with the Community led him to speak to the Data
>> Protection Authorities (DPAs), which resulted in the Temp Spec’s Calzone
>> model.*" - He used the GDPR discussion as a silver lining to mention
>> that he did not wish for policy discussions at icann to be one-sided and
>> that it was his job to ensure any conversation included civil society.
>>
>> Back at this call he also mentioned the upcoming session in kobe about
>> the evolution of ICANN’s multistakeholder model and encouraged our
>> participation on it. Additionally he mentioned that  *"without Civil
>> Society groups, and without At-Large, ICANN would be a trade organization
>> and the multistakeholder model would not exist in its current form."*
>> Unfortunately the timing of the above mentioned call, which happened prior
>> to Japan, was unfortunate and only allowed an introductory conversation on
>> this. But given that NCSG is writing a comment on this issue, I would be
>> more than happy to bring the views submitted at the comment or AOBs
>> regarding to this discussion.
>>
>> I also agree about the ongoing and unfinished processes going on at the
>> community and would like to shine a light on this topic, maybe @Michael
>> Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com> could also help elaborate smth here
>> with some insight from the ATRT3 team ? Additionally, it would be great to
>> bring input on HRs here too considering that ICANN just published its
>> first HRIA <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2019-05-15-en>.
>>
>> I am open to whatever suggestion our membership has!
>>
>> Thanks again for the input, Tatiana!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bruna
>>
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 29 mai 2019 à 15:14, Dr. Tatiana Tropina <t.tropina at mpicc.de> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Hi Bruna and all,
>>>
>>> We did discuss this on the NCSG level, but might be worth to suggest
>>> bringing this from the NCUC perspective as well - I will leave it to you
>>> and to the membership to decide how worth this topic would be for chair's
>>> meeting with ICANN CEO.
>>>
>>> So the issue is the following. There have been concerns expressed by our
>>> members (both NCUC and NCSG) about the work on the so-called evolution of
>>> multi-stakeholder model. I personally -- and I believe I am not alone --
>>> would really like to have some more clarity as to how this work correlates
>>> with other processes and how we ensure that it doesn't harm or duplicate
>>> the on-going work by the ICANN community, especially on accountability.
>>> This work on evolving MS model has started while there are some processes
>>> on reforming ICANN has not been finished due to various reasons, including
>>> resource allocation: for example, there is  community developed
>>> recommendations for WS2 accountability, including accountability of AC/SOs,
>>> Human Rights Core value, still not adopted, and we are still not even near
>>> the implementation and the timeline is not clear, let alone the required
>>> resources. There is ATRT3 work going on, there is PDP 3.0 implementation
>>> work of the GNSO council, so how the work on the evolving model correlates
>>> with all this, especially accountability, in terms of resources and
>>> efforts? Are we trying to reform something before even implementing the set
>>> of reforms that are already on the table and waiting to be implemented?
>>>
>>> This would be my suggestion.
>>>
>>> Warm regards,
>>>
>>> Tanya
>>> On 29.05.19 18:35, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear NCUCers,
>>>
>>> On June 12 I will have a call with ICANN's CEO and if theres any
>>> suggestion of topics that could added to the agenda, I would really much
>>> appreciate it.
>>>
>>> Are there any questions NCUC would like to ask ICANN org ? PDPs,
>>> budgets/resources allocation ?
>>>
>>> Please write back in case you wish to suggest anything.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> --
>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>> NCUC Chair
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.orghttps://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
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20190603/0f99352d/attachment.html>