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

[Michael Karanicolas]

Thanks Louise!

With 4 votes in favour, I will now forward along to the NCUC discussion
list - I look forward to the conversation moving forward in that open forum.

Michael

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Louise Marie Hurel <
louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I concur with Elsa's points (also agree that it would be great for EC
> members to chime in) and have not much to add except for the fact that, as
> previously stated, this should also be taken as a moment for us to
> strengthen communication between the EC and members. The statement does
> echo this point by suggesting the development of potential best
> practices/guidelines for EC communication that both addresses the
> criticality of meeting deadlines and providing feedback to our membership.
> Thus, I support the current version.
>
> Best,
>
> Louise Marie Hurel
>
> Cybersecurity Project Coordinator | Igarapé Institute
>
> London School of Economics (LSE) Media and Communications (Data and
> Society)
> Skype: louise.dias
> +44 (0) 7468 906327
> *l.h.dias at lse.ac.uk <l.h.dias at lse.ac.uk> *
> louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com
>
>
> On 11 June 2018 at 23:38, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20180611/eda4a653/attachment.html>