Hello, have the venue details etc for the advisors' meeting been put up? Arun Sent from my iPhone @arunmsukumar Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance National Law University, Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com Ph:+91-9871943272
On 19-Mar-2015, at 9:30 pm, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
If we want a truly multistakeholder process and to strengthen the model that we purport to be supporting, why not agree a small select group of people now that represent the community.
Select people that each group trusts to stand up for their own interests while also being skilled and diplomatic enough to make reasonable compromises.
And then insist that when the inevitable need arises for a smaller group to allow things to progress that they - all of them - are the group that is chosen to do the job.
Is this not what the appointed members of the chartering organizations are?
From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:26 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: James Gannon; Robin Gross; Adam Peake; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG Advisors joining Istanbul meeting
So this is very helpful and professional of Adam, as ever.
My question would be: what, if anything, exists that would prevent ICANN from holding closed meetings with key people in this process at any point in future?
Is there a written assurance or set of rules that dictate how meetings will be run?
Has ICANN committed to ensuring there is at least one CWG member at all meetings concerning the transition?
Is there an authoritative calendar of meetings rather than single email announcements on multiple mailing lists?
As anyone who has followed ICANN for more than a few months will know, big important public consultations often get decided at the last minute by a select group of people and are then passed, often with community members decrying the results.
Just as frequently, there is a sudden change in perspective from a significant number of people which then moves the entire decision-making process in the broader group discussion.
The problem is that that change in perspective typically follows a closed meeting (or meetings) of people that the ICANN staff/Board put together. It is often seen as "what has to happen to make things move forward".
Except of course the selection of people in that room is what steers the decision. And pragmatism frequently gives way to manipulation in the corporation's own self interest.
The IANA transition and accountability changes will impact the corporation's self interest more than any other process I have known in ICANN's 15 years. And so this cultural default is not only ripe for abuse but almost certainly will be abused. As ICANN corporate sees it, the stakes are too high.
If we want a truly multistakeholder process and to strengthen the model that we purport to be supporting, why not agree a small select group of people now that represent the community.
Select people that each group trusts to stand up for their own interests while also being skilled and diplomatic enough to make reasonable compromises.
And then insist that when the inevitable need arises for a smaller group to allow things to progress that they - all of them - are the group that is chosen to do the job.
Kieren
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote: Thanks very much, Adam.
Regards, Keith
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:07 AM To: Robin Gross; Adam Peake
Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG Advisors joining Istanbul meeting
+1 Handled well by all involved.
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 2:45 PM To: Adam Peake Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG Advisors joining Istanbul meeting
Much appreciated, Adam!
Best, Robin
On Mar 19, 2015, at 6:18 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
Hi everyone,
Replies received from the Advisors, they understand the communities's concerns and are happy for their meeting on Sunday 22 March to be open to observers.
Staff will provide room details, etc, in due course.
Thanks for you patience.
Best,
Adam
From: Adam Peake <adam.peake@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 8:27 PM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG Advisors joining Istanbul meeting
Hi everyone,
I understand your concerns. We are working on a solution and will let you know shortly.
Thank you for your understanding.
Best,
Adam
From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 7:25 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Cc: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, Adam Peake <adam.peake@icann.org>, Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG Advisors joining Istanbul meeting
All: I see the utility of the advisors having a meeting on their own, but agree with the perception issue created if staff are briefing them or providing background absent CCWG members.
Can I suggest that the best way to do this would be for one of the co-chairs to be in the room with the advisors when staff are there, for the relevant section of the meeting?
I don't have any view at this stage about the need for that part of the meeting to be open to observers etc - it doesn't sound like a bad idea or a problem to me per se to have that bit open. Open tho doesn't to me imply remote participation etc at this point.
Cheers Jordan
On 19 March 2015 at 10:43, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Correction: Ed, Robin & Keith
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:41 PM To: Edward Morris; Adam Peake
Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG Advisors joining Istanbul meeting
I concur with the views below from Adam, Robin & Keith.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Edward Morris Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:21 PM To: Adam Peake Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG Advisors joining Istanbul meeting
HI Adam,
I'd suggest that staff should not be the ones providing "background" to the experts, assuming "background" includes interpretation of substantive subject matter.
Ed
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Adam Peake <adam.peake@icann.org> wrote: Hi everyone,
The advisors asked if they could have their own meeting; to get to know each other, to help them prepare for the sessions on Monday and Tuesday, to consider how they might best support the group while in Istanbul and ongoing. I thought it very reasonable that they should want to do this. I hope it will benefit the CCWG's work in the coming days, and over the next few months.
Some questions asked:
No, ICANN Board members will not join the advisors meeting on Sunday. Staff will be there, but to provide support/background. The purpose of the meeting is to allow the advisors to be able to talk about the proposals before them from the CCWG, and, I think, essentially to get to know each other.
We hadn't envisioned opening the meeting to observers. As it's their first opportunity for them to talk, to hold informal discussions, I think it perhaps helpful if not open. They are trying to prepare themselves for the meetings ahead.
Hopefully the Chairs will meet the Advisors later in the day, but this in part depends on travel plans.
Hope this helps.
Best,
Adam
From: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 4:12 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG Advisors joining Istanbul meeting
I share Keith's concern. Let's remember we are holding ICANN to a high standard of transparency in its accountability processes - so of course that standard of transparency applies to this work as well. I planned to arrive to Istanbul in time to attend any mtgs on Sunday so would like to attend this one as well at least as an observer.
Thanks, Robin
On Mar 18, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
Hi Seun,
I respectfully disagree.
If ICANN staff or Board members are participating in or attending a private planning meeting of the Advisors, then community members should also be invited to observe, at a minimum.
If you look at their agenda items 2-5 (especially 2-3), their private meeting will contribute to setting expectations and understanding of the issues. Wouldn’t that be best enabled through participation of CCWG members, or the Co-Chairs at a minimum?
In my opinion, it would be inappropriate for ICANN staff and/or Board members to have unique access to the Advisors at this sensitive and formative stage in their engagement with the CCWG.
Thanks and regards, Keith
From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 2:19 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Adam Peake Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG Advisors joining Istanbul meeting
Hi, While it may be fine to have them meet openly, I don't think it's something to worry about. The reason is because of their role being advisory; one would expect that whatever they determine would still be forwarded to ccwg as an advice to consider. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 18 Mar 2015 19:09, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote: Hi Adam,
Will any ICANN staff or Board members participate in or attend the private meeting of the Advisors?
Is there a reason their meeting is not open to observers?
Thanks, Keith
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 2:04 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG Advisors joining Istanbul meeting
Hi everyone,
Three of the Advisors will attend the CCWG meeting on Monday and Tuesday next week:
Valerie D'Costa, Jan Scholte and Lee Bygrave (https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors)
They arrive on Saturday and will hold their own meeting on Sunday morning and early afternoon. At least one other member, Willie Currie, will join remote.
This is the first time any of them will have had chance to meet face to face. Tentative agenda for their meeting:
09:00 - 15:00 local Istanbul (07:00 - 13:00 UTC)
1. Introduction & Opening Remarks 2. Topics of interest & Concerns 3. Understanding the context and recent developments 4. How can we help the CCWG? 5. Preparing for CCWG session 6. A.O.B
They will receive the same documents as all members of the CCWG, and we suspect their discussions will be shaped by those (WP1, WP2, stress test work party outcomes)
They will join the welcome cocktail.
Best,
Adam
Adam Peake
ICANN
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4306/9294 - Release Date: 03/13/15 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4306/9294 - Release Date: 03/13/15
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
A better world through a better Internet
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community