[NCUC-EC] Statement on Transparency and Off-list Communication

Tue Jun 12 00:38:47 CEST 2018

Thanks very much Bruna, Elsa.

We can clarify the bylaws reference to s. XII(a), which is where the
language is actually from, and we can include a reference to potentially
amending our operating procedures - though I don't know if we want to
undertake another bylaw revision at this point, having just come through
the other side of such a process. In terms of the statement that "all
communications should happen by default on the EC list unless when the
operating procedures or bylaws allows us to" - I don't really disagree -
but I think those specifics should be saved for the actual debate over the
proposed communications guidelines, if our members want us to pursue that
conversation.

Elsa, added a specific reference to the communications regarding the IGF
proposal (which, personally, I have no issues disclosing).

...

First off, we can confirm that we sometimes use off-list methods to
communicate with one another, both individually and at times, as a group.
We do not believe this represents a violation of our bylaws or operating
procedures. Indeed, the transparency section of our bylaws (section XII(a))
specifically contemplates instances where information may need to be
withheld, such as where its disclosure would negatively impact our
engagement with a policy under discussion. In other instances, we may use
offlist communications for more informal or social chatter, unrelated to
the NCUC decision-making process, or to try and get the attention of a
person where on-list communications are going unanswered.

EC deliberations take place on-list. But, when juggling multiple
communication tracks, it is inevitable that there can be some overlap, or
instances where a communication that should be made on-list is made using
an external service. That was the case with regards to the latest IGF
proposal, where some of the reviewing feedback was given via Skype. In
part, this was due to the quick turnaround of the proposal, and the pending
deadline (for a full timeline of how the IGF proposal was developed, please
see the discussion on the NCUC-Discuss list here
<https://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2018-June/044315.html>). It
is worth noting that, in this case, substantially identical feedback was
sent to the ExComm list at the same time, in order to ensure that it was
documented.

Nonetheless, we acknowledge that the use of off-list communication is a
problem. In order to remedy it, one suggestion would be for us to develop
and approve guidelines for EC communications, and rules around their
archiving and disclosure (including, potentially, any off-list
communications about the IGF proposal which triggered this discussion).
These could potentially be incorporated into our operating procedures. If
members feel that is a good idea – we would be happy to develop a draft for
discussion.

Transparency and accountability are values that we hold dear and, in many
cases, are active advocates for across the ICANN communities. The challenge
of managing formal and informal avenues of communication is a common one
across the transparency sector, particularly with the expanding diversity
of communications tools and devices that we now have available. We are
committed to doing better, and to working harder to foster trust between
the EC and its constituents. As always, we welcome constructive feedback.

We look forward to the conversation.

The NCUC Executive Committee

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> First of all for the record, I think it’s important for the whole EC to
> write a response to the thread as the discussion did point out the EC and
> its credibility as a whole.
>
> A reference to the detailed deliberations that took place off-list could
> also be a good idea as the problem that was outlined was not the fact that
> we have an informal channel generally, rather 1. What has been archived is
> incomplete in the eyes of our members (thus our need to be more careful
> there) and 2. There’s a doubt that the EC is just making decisions last
> minute for personal advancement. Though I know that we are all doing our
> best for NCUC and of course i personally appreciate all efforts, the issue
> is the fact that the EC approved a proposal with a 24hr deadline and the
> constituency hadnt had much time to review it. Thus, I support the
> statement to be sent, with an additional reference to the informal thread
> that lead to the development of the proposal since 3 of us 5 are a part of
> the session proposed. And there’s a thin line that we’ll need to figure out
> when such instances are bound to happen! Thus my full support to the
> suggestion of developing offlist guidelines which I’d be happy to help with.
>
> Those are my two cents. Hope they are helpful!
>
> Best,
>
> Elsa
> —
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:12 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos <
> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Two more points and I swear to god I will stop:
>>
>> 1. should we suppress Bylaws mention ? or reduce it to XI, A and B. Point
>> C is about the chair allowing non-members discussions.
>> 2. In light of point B id maybe change the tone in the statement by
>> mentioning that all communications should happen by default on the EC
>> list unless when the operating procedures or bylaws allows us to do
>> otherwise. The way we wrote it hints at the idea that it might happen again
>> apart from the cases in which we are allowed to do so. 3. I take my
>> suggestion of suppressing the paragraph about the IGF proposal back. But
>> maybe rewriting it mentioning that the mistake happened as we were under
>> time pressure and think this would be a good space for changing our
>> Operating Procedures maybe ? we have a section on "VI. Outreach Events and
>> Other Sessions: Proposal, Development, Communication" that could maybe be
>> amended with improved guidelines for proposal submission on behalf of ncuc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2018-06-11 17:44 GMT-03:00 Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Apologies - that should refer to s. XII... Apparently I need to brush up
>>> on my roman numerals.
>>>
>>> I'm fine with the revisions to the first paragraph, but would prefer to
>>> keep the lines in the second or third, since they add important information
>>> - that the inputs made to the IGF proposal via Skype were identical to
>>> those that were sent to the list, and that (as far as I know) no other
>>> group at ICANN has a policy addressing this.
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>> First off, we can confirm that we sometimes use off-list methods to
>>> communicate with one another, both individually and at times, as a group.
>>> We do not believe this represents a violation of our bylaws or operating
>>> procedures. Indeed, the transparency section of our bylaws (section XII)
>>> specifically contemplates instances where information may need to be
>>> withheld, such as where its disclosure would negatively impact our
>>> engagement with a policy under discussion. In other instances, we may use
>>> offlist communications for more informal or social chatter, unrelated to
>>> the NCUC decision-making process, or to try and get the attention of a
>>> person where on-list communications are going unanswered.
>>>
>>> EC deliberations take place on-list. But, when juggling multiple
>>> communication tracks, it is inevitable that there can be some overlap, or
>>> instances where a communication that should be made on-list is made using
>>> an external service. [That was the case with regards to the latest IGF
>>> proposal, where some of the reviewing feedback was given via Skype. In
>>> part, this was due to the quick turnaround of the proposal, and the pending
>>> deadline (for a full timeline of how the IGF proposal was developed, please
>>> see the discussion on the NCUC-Discuss list here
>>> <https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=https://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2018-June/044315.html&source=gmail&ust=1528835918947000&usg=AFQjCNG5hs6RKCfzorRhkGfMl43Fc5C0iQ>).
>>> It is worth noting that, in this case, substantially identical feedback was
>>> sent to the ExComm list at the same time, in order to ensure that it was
>>> documented.]
>>>
>>> Nonetheless, we acknowledge that the use of off-list communication is a
>>> problem. In order to remedy it, one suggestion would be for us to develop
>>> and approve guidelines for off-list discussions, and rules around their
>>> archiving and disclosure. If members feel that is a good idea – we would be
>>> happy to develop a draft for discussion. We believe this would make us the
>>> only Constituency or Stakeholder Group which has taken steps to address
>>> this nearly universal issue - and would be glad to be at the forefront of
>>> that debate.
>>>
>>> Transparency and accountability are values that we hold dear and, in
>>> many cases, are active advocates for across the ICANN communities. The
>>> challenge of managing formal and informal avenues of communication is a
>>> common one across the transparency sector, particularly with the expanding
>>> diversity of communications tools and devices that we now have available.
>>> We are committed to doing better, and to working harder to foster trust
>>> between the EC and its constituents. As always, we welcome constructive
>>> feedback.
>>>
>>> We look forward to the conversation.
>>>
>>> The NCUC Executive Committee
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Bruna Martins dos Santos <
>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also, the ref to the Bylaws is wrong!
>>>>
>>>> VII. Leaving Office
>>>>
>>>> A. An elected officer or appointed committee member of the NCUC may
>>>> submit an email or notice of resignation to the Chair whenever
>>>> circumstances call for such an action.
>>>> B. In the event of the resignation of the Chair, the Vice Chair shall
>>>> finish the term of the departing Chair.
>>>> C. Elected or appointed officers and representatives of the
>>>> Constituency can be removed for non participation as stipulated in section
>>>> VII D and E.
>>>> D. Regional representatives who fail to attend more than three (3)
>>>> meetings in a row are considered to have resigned their office. If they
>>>> send apologies for their absence, after three (3) times, they will be
>>>> treated as per section IV.E.6 below.
>>>> E. If an EC member consistently fails to meet his/her responsibilities,
>>>> the other EC members shall notify the person in question and discuss how to
>>>> rectify the situation. If performance does not improve to satisfactory
>>>> levels within three (3) months, the other EC members besides the person in
>>>> question may, on a unanimous vote, remove the member from office.
>>>> F. Regional representatives who fail to vote within 7 days three times
>>>> in a row are considered to have resigned their office.
>>>> G. When any member of the EC or any other NCUC committee has failed to
>>>> meet participation criteria as specified in as specified in the bylaws and
>>>> has been removed by the EC, the Chair, after consulting with members, may
>>>> appoint a temporary replacement to finish the remaining term. If the
>>>> remaining term of the resigning or removed elected representative(s) is
>>>> greater than six (6) months, a new election shall be organized.
>>>> H. The standards for performing the duties of NCUC leadership positions
>>>> include impartiality, accountability, and avoidance of conflicts of
>>>> interest. NCUC officers are expected to be fair and responsible stewards of
>>>> the NCUC’s activities. The Chair, in particular, is expected to look after
>>>> the general interests of the NCUC and to be responsive to all members and
>>>> officers in their requests for information. Term limits and regular
>>>> elections, as well as removal procedures for 16 corrupt officers or
>>>> officers who fail to perform their responsibilities, are intended to keep
>>>> officers accountable and responsive. The NCUC Executive Committee shall
>>>> draft detailed operating rules for removal of officers who fail to meet
>>>> these standards within six (6) months of the approval of the Bylaws by the
>>>> Board.
>>>>
>>>> 2018-06-11 16:11 GMT-03:00 Bruna Martins dos Santos <
>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont oppose to the general content of the communiqué but would
>>>>> suggest suppressing whats in red and adding whats in green.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, in light of the fact that Renata, Michael and Me have already
>>>>> answered the IGF proposal point in the thread, I would take the second
>>>>> paragraph out (the part between brackets), for the sake of making the text
>>>>> shorter/more direct. I took some minutes to think about the text and no
>>>>> longer see any reasons for readdressing the issue. What do we think ?
>>>>>
>>>>> @Renata, given that you think this issue has already been addressed,
>>>>> if this texts is voted to be sent do you want us to mention your objection
>>>>> ? How would this go ?
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *First off, we can confirm that we sometimes use off-list methods to
>>>>> communicate with one another, both individually and at times, as a group.
>>>>> We do not believe this represents is not any violation of our bylaws or
>>>>> operating procedures. Indeed, the transparency section of our bylaws
>>>>> (section VII) specifically contemplates instances where information may
>>>>> need to be withheld, such as where its disclosure would negatively impact
>>>>> our engagement with a policy under discussion. In other instances, we may
>>>>> use offlist communications for more informal or social chatter, unrelated
>>>>> to the NCUC decision-making process like. Or we may use alternate measures
>>>>> to try and get the attention of a person where on-list communications are
>>>>> going unanswered.EC deliberations take place on-list. But, when juggling
>>>>> multiple communication tracks, it is inevitable that there can be some
>>>>> overlap, or instances where a communication that should be made on-list is
>>>>> made using an external service. [That was the case with regards to the
>>>>> latest IGF proposal, where some of the reviewing feedback was given via
>>>>> Skype. In part, this was due to the quick turnaround of the proposal, and
>>>>> the pending deadline (for a full timeline of how the IGF proposal was
>>>>> developed, please see the discussion on the NCUC-Discuss list here
>>>>> <https://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2018-June/044315.html>). It
>>>>> is worth noting that, in this case, substantially identical feedback was
>>>>> sent to the ExComm list at the same time, in order to ensure that it was
>>>>> documented.]Nonetheless, we acknowledge that the use of off-list
>>>>> communication is a problem. In order to remedy it, one suggestion would be
>>>>> for us to develop and approve guidelines for off-list discussions, and
>>>>> rules around their archiving and disclosure. If members feel that is a good
>>>>> idea – we would be happy to develop a draft for discussion. We believe this
>>>>> would make us the only Constituency or Stakeholder Group which has taken
>>>>> steps to address this nearly universal issue - and would be glad to be at
>>>>> the forefront of that debate.Transparency and accountability are values
>>>>> that we hold dear and, in many cases, are active advocates for across the
>>>>> ICANN communities. The challenge of managing formal and informal avenues of
>>>>> communication is a common one across the transparency sector, particularly
>>>>> with the expanding diversity of communications tools and devices that we
>>>>> now have available. We are committed to doing better, and to working harder
>>>>> to foster trust between the EC and its constituents. As always, we welcome
>>>>> constructive feedback.We look forward to the conversation.The NCUC
>>>>> Executive Committee*
>>>>>
>>>>> 2018-06-11 15:36 GMT-03:00 Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com
>>>>> >:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following is a statement which EC members developed over the past
>>>>>> two days. It is now submitted for EC approval as a statement in response to
>>>>>> the previous days' discussions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Recently there’s been some discussion about EC deliberation and
>>>>>> procedures. We would like to clarify a few things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First off, we can confirm that we sometimes use off-list methods to
>>>>>> communicate with one another, both individually and at times, as a group.
>>>>>> This is not a violation of our bylaws or operating procedures. Indeed, the
>>>>>> transparency section of our bylaws (section VII) specifically contemplates
>>>>>> instances where information may need to be withheld, such as where its
>>>>>> disclosure would negatively impact our engagement with a policy under
>>>>>> discussion. In other instances, we may use offlist communications for more
>>>>>> informal or social chatter, unrelated to the NCUC decision-making process.
>>>>>> Or we may use alternate measures to try and get the attention of a person
>>>>>> where on-list communications are going unanswered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EC deliberations take place on-list. But, when juggling multiple
>>>>>> communication tracks, it is inevitable that there can be some overlap, or
>>>>>> instances where a communication that should be made on-list is made using
>>>>>> an external service. That was the case with regards to the latest IGF
>>>>>> proposal, where some of the reviewing feedback was given via Skype. In
>>>>>> part, this was due to the quick turnaround of the proposal, and the pending
>>>>>> deadline (for a full timeline of how the IGF proposal was developed, please
>>>>>> see the discussion on the NCUC-Discuss list here
>>>>>> <https://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2018-June/044315.html>).
>>>>>> It is worth noting that, in this case, substantially identical feedback was
>>>>>> sent to the ExComm list at the same time, in order to ensure that it was
>>>>>> documented.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonetheless, we acknowledge that the use of off-list communication is
>>>>>> a problem. In order to remedy it, one suggestion would be for us to develop
>>>>>> and approve guidelines for off-list discussions, and rules around their
>>>>>> archiving and disclosure. If members feel that is a good idea – we would be
>>>>>> happy to develop a draft for discussion. We believe this would make us the
>>>>>> only Constituency or Stakeholder Group which has taken steps to address
>>>>>> this nearly universal issue - and would be glad to be at the forefront of
>>>>>> that debate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Transparency and accountability are values that we hold dear and, in
>>>>>> many cases, are active advocates for across the ICANN communities. The
>>>>>> challenge of managing formal and informal avenues of communication is a
>>>>>> common one across the transparency sector, particularly with the expanding
>>>>>> diversity of communications tools and devices that we now have available.
>>>>>> We are committed to doing better, and to working harder to foster trust
>>>>>> between the EC and its constituents. As always, we welcome constructive
>>>>>> feedback.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We look forward to the conversation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The NCUC Executive Committee
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>>>>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>>>>
>>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>>>> @boomartins
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>>>
>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>>> @boomartins
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>
>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>> @boomartins
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>
> --
> --
>
> Elsa Saade
> Consultant
> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20180611/9d156930/attachment.html>