[NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting with CEO.
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at dnrc.tech
Mon Jun 10 15:33:16 CEST 2019
Hi Bruna and Louise,
Tx you for your work! May I suggest another bullet to the "Evolution of
the MS Model" section Q1 -- "why now?" In a world where everyone
working on Multistakeholder Policy is beyond busy, beyond committed and
beyond overbooked, why are we engaged in the proceeding right now? We
have 2 huge PDP Working Groups meeting weekly and one EPDP spending
enormous amounts of time. What more can the community handle? It hardly
seems fair to ask people to look at the "forest" when we are so involved
with the "trees." Isn't this very proceeding evidence of the concerns of
overburdening the volunteer community -- and how can we push it to a
later date?
I note with comment deadline already extended, ICANN has only received 5
comments in this proceeding. The Community is full booked -- how do we
postpone this process?
Best and tx,
Kathy
On 6/7/2019 10:58 PM, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Thank you very much for the suggestions shared on this thread. @Louise
> Marie Hurel <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:louise at igarape.org.br>
> louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com <mailto:louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 21:39, Michael Karanicolas
> <mkaranicolas at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 thatICANN 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 <mailto: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 list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
--
Kathy Kleiman
President (on leave), Domain Name Rights Coalition
Visiting Scholar, Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20190610/3f841131/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list