[NCUC-DISCUSS] Updates on ICANN67
Niels ten Oever
lists at digitaldissidents.org
Mon Mar 2 17:59:29 CET 2020
Hi Stephanie,
These are great issues to discuss. Could we perhaps also put the implementation of WS2 on the agenda? The board has accepted the community proposal, but has not communicated clear steps on, for instance, bylaw changes and other work. Could the board provide an agenda and milestones for implementation of the WS2 report?
Best,
Niels
On 3/2/20 5:49 PM, Stephanie E Perrin wrote:
> I sent out a call for proposals, I sent my suggestions to the PC. No comments on time, we were on deadline. Here they are, comments are welcome because of course these things are fluid:
>
> cheers Stephanie
>
> Here are the proposed topics for the NCSG discussion with the Board. We are of course happy to engage on other subjects, but these are top of mind at the moment.
>
> The NCSG, reflecting the views of civil society generally, would like to comment on a few recent events at ICANN that have raised alarm bells in terms of the ongoing affordability and sustainability of an open, free, and vigorous DNS. The first of these is the impending sale of .ORG. We did not raise our concerns about the removal of price caps, although a significant proportion of our community were dead against this action. Many others had faith in .ORG, and trusted their commitments, We were disappointed to learn of the sale in the manner in which we did, so soon after the removal of the price caps. As you know, there has been a broad ranging discussion on this topic, and we would like to compare notes with you.
>
> The second issue is the removal of price caps for .com. Since .com still accounts for 80% of GTLD registrations, how can ICANN justify the removal of price caps for such a monopoly registry?
>
> The third issue we want to highlight is the cost of the impending SSAD being developed by the EPDP, bearing in mind that the benefits of this system have not been balanced against costs, and many of the decisions which are required for the high volume requests CANNOT be automated. Is the cost of this white elephant justified? We have raised many objections to some of the aspects of this machine we are tasked with designing, from the moment that it was first discussed in the charter drafting process.
>
> Another topic we wish to raise is the ongoing sustainability of the MS model. You have hinted in the past that travel costs and concern about our carbon footprint may dictate fewer face to face meetings. Given the growing complexity of the policy work (cf. the EPDP, which comes on the heels of the RDS working group, an exhausting debate highlighted by limited progress and much disagreement) we doubt that we can produce good results without face to face meetings. We applaud and thank the staff and the community for responding quickly to the crisis precipitated by the cancellation of the CANCUN meeting, but it is very clear that this meeting is a pale shadow of a normal ICANN public meeting. Given the strong possibility that ICANN68 will also have to be cancelled due to the Corona virus situation, may we suggest that a study group be struck to make recommendations about how to improve these virtual meetings and make them more accessible to all global players? We are very
> concerned that there is insufficient community engagement and consultation on key decisions, and that we are really going to have to work hard together to figure out how to be more truly global and inclusive in our approach to virtual meetings.
>
>
> kind regards,
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> NCSG Chair
> On 2020-03-02 11:11 a.m., Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> Will NCSG also have a meeting with the board at the meeting? If so, did we already agree on the questions for that?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> On 3/2/20 4:04 PM, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> I dont know if we need a later-the-same-day-discussion and, as I pointed out in my previous email, what we are trying to address here is a problem we already face with the normal onsite meetings which is bridging our onsite participation with the one on remote.
>>>
>>> Schedule is out now <https://meetings.icann.org/en/remote67> and we have around 70 sessions, if im not forgetting any. But given that this time the meeting will be hosted roughly on 8 zoom rooms, with two of them only for either French or spanish speakers, to be used by GAC or ALAC. this adds a language barrier to our meetings or even some of the PDPs. Hence our idea of sharing information more actively on the list, but Im not too sure of what the model should really be.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> B
>>>
>>> Le lun. 2 mars 2020 à 11:42, Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org>> a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>
>>> It might be me but, why do we need a later-the-same-day discussion group? Ppl can put their alarm clock and stay up, in the same way as they would with 'normal' or 'normal-remote' participation? Otherwise we could perhaps be a bit more verbose in the chatlog in our public channel so people can read the chatlogs?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Niels
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/2/20 3:04 PM, Stephanie E Perrin wrote:
>>> > Well that sounds like you are volunteering to help organize a later-that-same-day discussion group, Niels! :-D
>>> >
>>> > I think we need to do something to engage folks who are outside the time zones (09:00-17:00 EST or Cancun time) as otherwise, we are stuck listening to Zoom tapes. The transcription on Zoom must be robotic, it is really pretty bad, so we need to help folks understand what when on that day IMO.
>>> >
>>> > Stephanie
>>> >
>>> > On 2020-03-02 6:41 a.m., Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>> >> Hi all,
>>> >>
>>> >> I am actually very excited about the remote meeting, since the existing practice of a traveling circus does not really seem the best way to create an inclusive and sustainable environment. I'd much rather shift my times at home than traveling all around the world to do the same.
>>> >>
>>> >> What are the current chat / discussion channels and platforms people use to discuss and navigate the meeting?
>>> >>
>>> >> Best,
>>> >>
>>> >> Niels
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 3/2/20 6:07 AM, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote:
>>> >>> I totally agree that, at this point we are facing a first time experiment and it may not be as problematic to collapse the NCSG, NCUC or NPOC meetings. But if the COVID situation continues to spread, we will most likely face another virtual meeting and maybe it would interesting for us as a Constituency and Stakeholder group to reassess this experience and check what worked or not. As well as how to ensure participation considering thelimited resources for translation services <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/language-services-at-icann67?fbclid=IwAR3YQXqWvnt4lH8UXSTwvPSMW4bUAZRkKnofdLM9Vz5mdIiyRQURK4GnssY#.Xlu8mylZ8M0.facebook>, for an example.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> My decision on cancelling the NCUC meetings was due to the fact that we have members in a lot of places and adding the weight of Constituency Meetings to this first experience could make it a bit harder - due to the different timezones. Therefore the idea of hosting a members call a few weeks later for us to reassess icann67 seemed like a better idea.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> In some ways, this experience might indeed be positive. Generally speaking, those of us attending meetings onsite tend to get really caught up with the work and f2f interactions that finding easy and authentic ways of reporting the meetings to remote participants is something long overdue. As mentioned by @Stephanie Perrin <mailto:stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca <mailto:stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca>>, maybe we can think of a way to help people who wont be able to be online and participate at the meeting live - I would like to offer the Blog space at ncuc.org <http://ncuc.org> <http://ncuc.org> for anyone willing to write short summaries of the sessions.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best,
>>> >>> Bruna Santos
>>> >>> NCUC Chair
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Le sam. 29 févr. 2020 à 17:19, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>> a écrit :
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks to Bruna for keeping us updated on what is going on with the all-virtual meeting, I guess we can call it the Zoom meeting. Appreciate the explanation, and agree with many of your criticisms. ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> But in one sense I think is fine to collapse the NCSG and NCUC meetings. I would not call that an abandonment of the NCUC, let’s just call it a merger. I hope you as well as NPOC can stick some of their own things into the agenda. And it don’t hurt us to discuss those things together. Everyone knows I don’t believe there should be separate constituencies anyway, just the unified SG. So it might do us good to meet together. ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> In that sense I agree with Benjamin that we can make lemonade out of this lemon and maybe make use of the opportunity to improve the multistakeholder model ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Dr. Milton L Mueller____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Georgia Institute of Technology____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> School of Public Policy____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> IGP_logo_gold block____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> *From:*Ncuc-discuss <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> <mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org>>> *On Behalf Of *Benjamin Akinmoyeje
>>> >>> *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2020 10:00 PM
>>> >>> *To:* Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>>>
>>> >>> *Cc:* NCUC Discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org> <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>>
>>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Updates on ICANN67____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Dear Chair,____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thank you for the update. It is indeed a challenge, just like every experiment is. Change is always constant, also in the face of the health challenges, the world faces at this present time. ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Maybe we can make some lemonade out of this lemon without hurting the MS model and rather improve it.____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Kind regards,____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Benjamin____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 6:59 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>>> wrote:____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We just got off another planning call, and with some new updates:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 1. Number of sessions has been cut down from over 300 sessions to less than 75 - all in UTC-5. ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 2. Upon request ICANN can provide zoom rooms with live translation to both French and Spanish. But we need to gather within our constituency whether there will be interest for any of the channels just so ICANN can set up one for NCSG or if we could just join the ones being facilitated to ALAC and GAC.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Please let me or @Maryam Bakoshi <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>> know if you would like to attend the meeting from either one of the channels - Spanish or French ones. ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best regards, ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Bruna Santos ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Le ven. 28 févr. 2020 à 12:23, Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>>> a écrit :____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Dear NCUC,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I just wanted to write you a short update on the upcoming ICANN virtual meeting. As you're all aware, recently ICANN decided to no longer host an onsite meeting and gave their staff and the Community Leaders the - impossible - challenge of organizing in two weeks an virtual meeting that should attempt at reproducing what would've been the schedule of ICANN67.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On that note some important things:
>>> >>> (a) NCUC will no longer host any sessions during this virtual meeting. On the interest of time and already foreseeing some difficulties our members might have in following this meeting, we will host our Members and EC session at a later date. ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> (b) ICANN67 Schedule will be shorter. Comm leaders were asked to only keep strictly necessary sessions and the consensus around the group was to keep mostly PDPs, Review Teams or any other Cross-community work we deemed necessary.
>>> >>> (c) Timezone will be Cancun TImezone - UTC -5 - and the meeting will run for shorter hours than normal, from 9h00 to 17h00. ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> (d) Live Translation Services will only be provided for English to Spanish + some live transcripts that could be translated. We understand that decision should be slightly exclusionary for other communities such as the Francophone community and maybe we could think of ways of having our french speakers writing up summaries of the sessions to be shared on the list. ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> With regards to the final schedule I believe ICANN should be able to provide us a new one by the beginning of next week.____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Last but not least, I would like to highlight how problematic this experiment has been. Of course it is a first time for ICANN and for us volunteers, but the decision of adapting the entire schedule in two weeks is ambitious to say the least. I also fear that this experiment ends up harming the MS model we have built ICANN around, whether virtual or onsite, a lot of the communities interactions are being sacrificed on behalf of this first experiment and I just hope we get to have an onsite Kuala Lumpur meeting as well as a broader community discussions about this first virtual meeting. ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> While I highly appreciate all the efforts being made by David Olive, Tanzanica, the meetings team and Maryam in making sure our priority meetings do make it to the schedule, (personal thought) I would've wished for ICANN to just call this meeting of or even postpone it for us to have a bit more time in discussing with our constituents what the priorities should be and how to better adjust the schedule. ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I will keep you all posted when there are more updates on the virtual meeting. ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best Regards,
>>> >>> ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -- ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> */Bruna Martins dos Santos /*____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> @boomartins____
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> __ __
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -- ____
>>> >>>
>>> >>> */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> <mailto: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
>>> >>>
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
>>>
>>> --
>>> Niels ten Oever
>>> Researcher and PhD Candidate
>>> Datactive Research Group
>>> University of Amsterdam
>>>
>>> PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
>>> 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
--
Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate
Datactive Research Group
University of Amsterdam
PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list