[NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting with CEO.

Sat Jun 8 04:58:24 CEST 2019

Dear all,

Thank you very much for the suggestions shared on this thread.  @Louise
Marie Hurel <louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com> and I worked on the following
talking points/questions for the upcoming NCUC meeting with the CEO:
------

Evolution of the MS Model

Q1: We thank the efforts dedicated throughout ICANN 63 and 64 to gather
inputs from the community. However, after having reviewed the outcome, that
is, the issues list circulated with the evolution of the MSH model, we
would like to know two things:
- How do you see the effectiveness of the model going forward? What is the
understanding of "effectiveness" we are actually aiming at here?
- How do you see the next steps?

Q2:  How do we ensure that the current evaluation on the evolution of the
MSH model doesn't harm or duplicate the on-going work by the ICANN
community, especially on accountability?

Budget allocation

Q3: We know that for some parts of this community, NCUC/NCSG is not seen as
the exclusive voice representing Civil Society within the ICANN
Multistakeholder model. But we cannot ignore that this stakeholder group
and its constituencies have played a major role in ensuring that the
non-commercial perspectives are conveyed within the GNSO PDPs. Still, this
part of this community continues to face cuts in the budget allocated to us
- our ABRs are not seen as priorities and we are often forced outsource in
order to ensure our members attendance to meetings while other
constituencies are securing budget to additional travel slots and
outreaches. Therefore we ask: how do you see the sustainability of our
stakeholder group vis à vis the ongoing cuts on resource allocation (i.e.
ABR) to our groups? We would like to better understand the perceptions and
expectations, as it is quite challenging to understand the criteria through
which our requests are evaluated.
----

Best,
Bruna Santos
NCUC Chair

Le lun. 3 juin 2019 à 18:36, Louise Marie Hurel <louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com>
a écrit :

> 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
>>
>

-- 
*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
@boomartins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20190607/959ef0f6/attachment.html>