[NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting with CEO.

Sun Jun 9 20:00:09 CEST 2019

@Bruna, very well stated and explained.

Regards
Peter

On Sat, Jun 8, 2019, 3:58 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190609/f4700520/attachment.html>