Showing posts with label f2f Meeting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label f2f Meeting. Show all posts

2016-02-26

NETmundial Initiative, WEF and ICANN Withdrawal, Consequences

UPDATE: Comments of Larry Strickling (US Department of Commerce, NTIA) at the NETmundial Initiative meeting in Madrid (as reported by Samantha Dickinson):
UPDATE: The NETmundial Initiative (NMI) meeting in Madrid has concluded, and a Communique issued which includes the following points:
  • Funding by the founding 'partners' ICANN, World Economic Forum (WEF), and CGI.br ends June 30, 2016 [ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade announced at the meeting that the new ICANN CEO and the ICANN Board will determine at a later date whether to continue any funding beyond June 30th. Chehade also announced his resignation from the NMI Coordination Council effective March 13, 2016].
  • The Council considered and accepted a proposal for CGI.br to provide an institutional home for the ongoing initiative, subject to approval by CGI.br’s Board.  
  • The Council discussed the possibility of changing its current structure following a broad community consultation. 
  • The current open request for nominations to the Coordination Council is withdrawn. Once the public consultation is complete, a new nomination process will begin.  
  • Two activities were proposed for 2016, sponsorship for which has already been secured: (1) Document a set of good practices for national multistakeholder Internet governance structures and mechanisms; (2) Pilot the application of such practices in sub-Saharan Africa, including a conference to share learnings from pilot participants.
  • A follow-up meeting of the Coordination Council will be held in Brussels, Belgium, on 8 June 2016. 
[--end of UPDATE--]

NETmundial Initiative: "Council members are currently considering the future direction of the NETmundial Initiative, and will make decisions at the Council's face-to-face meeting in Madrid, Spain, on 26 February 2016. In the meanwhile the nomination process for a new Council announced previously is on hold pending the outcome of that meeting."

NETmundial Initiative Coordination Council, 2nd Face to Face Meeting, Madrid, Spain
Date: 26 Feb 2016 - Remote Participation: Adobe Connect Room.

AGENDA - times shown below are UTC:

08:00 - 08:30 Welcoming Remarks from Host, Co-Chairs Overview of Achievements.
Moderator: Eileen Donahoe

08:30 - 10:00 WEF [World Economic Forum] & ICANN Withdrawal: Financial & Political Consequences; Looking Forward - A quick reality check; value of NETmundial; order of magnitude of costs; potential new partners, etc. This session is meant to inform the next sessions.
Moderator: Jean-Jacques Subrenat
10:00 - 10:15 | Break

10:15 - 12:00 Moving Forward - Share and explore feasibility of ideas presented in the non-paper and subsequent CGI.br position paper; relationship with the IGF.
Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwächter
12:00 - 13:30 | Lunch

Afternoon Agenda TBD - to be determined based on work of morning sessions
13:30 - 14:30
14:30 - 14:45 | Break
14:45 - 15:30
15:30 - 16:00 NMI Roadmap Post June 2016
Moderator: Marilia Maciel
16:00 - 16:15 | Approval of Communique

Background:
The NETmundial Initiative (NMI) was one of  ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehade's personal pet projects while on "ICANN's dime" (Fadi is Co-Chair, as is Jack Ma and others), reportedly funded (in part) by ICANN, though NMI has never received wide support from either the global internet community, nor the "ICANN community"--see NETmundial Initiative Lacks Backing, and ICANN Should Not Lead and other sources below. See also this ICANN Documentary Information Disclosure Policy Request (pdf) and Response (pdf).

See on Domain Mondo:
NetMundial Initiative (NMI) - (Wikipedia): "The NMI was launched in on 6 November 2014 in a
partnership between the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) and the World Economic Forum (WEF). Its Inaugural Coordination Council consisted of 23 members ... Leading up to and following the initial scoping meeting of NMI in Geneva, Switzerland in August 2014, several actors in the broader Internet governance ecosystem expressed concerns over NMI's proposed organization and activities. Concerns intensified following the official launch in November of that year. ISOC, the IAB and ICC BASIS published statements outlining their concerns ... According to Julia Pohle in the Global Policy Journal, there were three main controversial issues surrounding NMI raised by civil society and the technical community: permanent seats on the NMI Council, potential interference with the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and concern over disproportionate involvement in decision-making by economic and political elite. NMI retracted the notion of permanent seats on the Council, committed to supporting the efforts of the IGF and generated Internet Governance Process Principles to comprehensively address concerns regarding adherence to bottom-up, multistakeholder consensus-driven governance."

#netmundial



DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2015-09-27

ICANN Board Does NOT Support CCWG Proposed Membership Model

"The [ICANN] Board does not support the single member model.  We are unified in wanting to work with the community to find practical solutions to achieve the additional levels of accountability sought by the community including the ability to remove Board members and the whole Board, requiring community approval of bylaws changes, and requiring the Board to work with the community to reach consensus on strategic plans, operating plans and budgets."--ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker, Sept 26, 2015, in "chat" following his statement further below (emphasis added)
Following Chairman Crocker's statements (above and below) at the CCWG meeting, Keith Drazek, Chair of the ICANN Registries Stakeholder Group in the "chat" stated--

Keith Drazek: "I don't think anyone wants to get to a point of brinksmanship between community and Board. We're not there now and we should try to avoid it. That probably means the CCWG needs to assess all the public comments, including the Board's, and try to identify a compromise solution that doesn't compromise our stated goals. Some legitimate concerns have been raised by the Board and others, and we need to address them. Doing so should result in a compromise everyone can live with....consensus."

On Saturday, September 26, 2015, the second day of the CCWG-Accountability F2F LA meeting, ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker informed the CCWG that the proposed single member model a/k/a CMSM model is not supported by the ICANN Board of Directors. Accordingly, CCWG's 2nd draft proposal for ICANN membership may likely fail to achieve the necessary "consensus"-- see "chat" comment of Keith Drazek, Chair of the ICANN Registries Stakeholder Group, above.

 STEVE CROCKER [ICANN Board Chairman]: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE CAN'T EMPHASIZE STRONGLY ENOUGH HOW THANKFUL WE ARE, HOW APPRECIATIVE WE ARE THAT EVERYBODY HAS COME TOGETHER. THIS IS A HASTILY SCHEDULED MEETING, DISPLACED A LOT OF SCHEDULES AND EVERYTHING. AND WE KNOW THAT A LOT OF -- THERE'S A LOT OF ENERGY THAT'S GONE INTO THIS. AND I WANT TO SPEAK -- I WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT THE BOARD'S POSITION AND ATTITUDE ABOUT ALL THIS.

THE TRANSITION IS VERY IMPORTANT. "VERY IMPORTANT" IS NOT THE SAME AS IT DOMINATES EVERY POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE. OUR PRIMARY COMMITMENT, OUR OVERRIDING COMMITMENT IS TO THE INCLUSIVE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL.
IT CANNOT SUPPORT COMPROMISES THAT UNDERMINE THAT MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL. THIS HAS BEEN BUILT UP IN A -- BY ACCRETION IN A WAY OVER 17 YEARS WITH CHANGES AND ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS OVER TIME. EACH OF US SERVES ON THE BOARD FOR THREE-YEAR TERMS. AND EVEN IF WE EXTEND IT OUT AS I HAVE FOR A LONG TIME, EVENTUALLY IT COMES TO AN END. NONE OF US ARE HERE PERMANENTLY. THERE'S NO SENSE IN WHICH THE BOARD HAS A ROLE DISTINCT FROM THE COMMUNITY. WE COME FROM THE COMMUNITY. WE RETURN TO THE COMMUNITY. AND WE LEAVE BEHIND WHAT WE HOPE IS A STRONGER AND MORE VIBRANT OPERATION.

BUT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT AS STRONGLY AS WE ARE SUPPORTIVE AND BELIEVE THAT THE TRANSITION AWAY FROM THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ENTIRE WORLD, THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, NOT JUST THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE OF ICANN, IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS PERSISTED FOR A LONG TIME. WE WRESTLE WITH IT. WE CHAFE UNDER IT A BIT. BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN DISASTROUS. SO THAT SETS A KIND OF THRESHOLD FOR WHAT OUR ULTIMATE DECISION PROCESS IS GOING TO BE.

WE THINK THAT WE ARE SO, SO CLOSE TO WRESTLING -- WRESTLING TO THE GROUND TO GETTING AGREEMENTS ON THE BIG THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT HERE ON ACCOUNTABILITY, ON TRANSPARENCY, ON ENFORCEABILITY, ON COMMUNITY POWERS, AND EVEN ABILITY TO REMOVE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS. YOU MAY THINK THAT THAT'S A THREAT SOMETIMES. WE THINK THAT WOULD BE A RELIEF AS AN ESCAPE. [LAUGHTER ]

ANOTHER KEY THING THAT'S VERY VIBRANT AND VISIBLE TO US IS THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION, THE PREDICATE FOR THE ANNOUNCEMENT MADE A YEAR AND A HALF AGO WAS THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WAS SAYING ICANN IS READY FOR BEING CAST LOOSE. IT DID NOT SAY WE ARE TIRED OF RUNNING IT AND WE HAVE TO FIND SOMEBODY TO SUBSTITUTE FOR OURSELVES. THEY DID SAY, OF COURSE, THEY WANTED A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT, THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL TO BE COMFORTABLE, TO EVERYBODY TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH THE SYSTEM. AND IT OPENED UP THE DIALOGUE WHICH LED TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. BUT THEY DID NOT -- AND I SHOULDN'T SPEAK ABOUT WHAT THEY SAID. BUT WE CERTAINLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND AND DON'T BELIEVE THAT CREATING A SUPERSTRUCTURE TO REPLACE THEM IN A CORPORATE SENSE WAS INTENDED, DESIRED, NEEDED, OR APPROPRIATE.

SO WE'RE FEELING OUR WAY VERY GINGERLY THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THE BOARD BELIEVES VERY DEEPLY AND TRIES TO ACT APPROPRIATELY THAT WE REPRESENT AND CARRY OUT THE SENSE OF THE COMMUNITY. WE'RE NOT IN A BASTION POSITION OF DEFENDING OURSELVES AGAINST THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE IN THE END, WE ARE TRYING TO BE REPRESENTATIVES AND CARETAKERS ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE VERY STRONG RESPONSIBILITY. AND THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS CAREFULLY SEPARATED FROM EACH OF THE STAKEHOLDERS AND CONSTITUENCIES. WE TAKE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST VERY SERIOUSLY IN THE SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE A PARTICULAR BOARD MEMBER HAS A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP OR DOESN'T HAPPEN, BUT A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP, IT HAS TO BE DISCLOSED AND THEY GET REMOVED FROM THE DECISION PROCESS AND SO FORTH.

WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME FRAMEWORK OF PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF DISCIPLINE IF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S FINE. THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE TAKE SERIOUSLY.

SO THE COMMENTS THAT WE SUBMITTED SOME TIME AGO, WE DID REPRESENT A BOARD POSITION. WE DID A QUICK CHECK THIS MORNING, AND 100% AGREEMENT THAT WHAT WE SAID THEN STILL STANDS.

WE REALLY, REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS SO CLOSE THAT IT'S THERE. AND, AS I SAID, WE ARE VERY STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PRINCIPLES AND THE OBJECTIVES. AND WE'RE DOWN TO WHAT IS SOMETIMES SAID WITH A LITTLE BIT OF IRONY, THESE ARE JUST IMPLEMENT DETAILS BUT THE IMPLEMENT DETAILS ARE, IN FACT, QUITE IMPORTANT.

I WAS REFLECTING AS I SAT IN MEETINGS -- IT IS ALMOST EMBARRASSING -- ALMOST 50 YEARS AGO TO BRING INDIVIDUALS TOGETHER TO BUILD THE ARPANET I WAS TERRIBLY CHAGRINED FAIRLY EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS WE HAD -- FIRST TIME WE HAD PEOPLE FLYING ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE U.S. TO COME TO A MEETING. AND THE MEETING FELL APART BY NOONTIME BECAUSE THE SOLUTION THAT I HAD BEEN PUSHING WAS REJECTED BY THE VERY PEOPLE I THOUGHT THAT I WAS DRAWING IT FROM. I WAS TAKING MODELS ABOUT THE WAY THE ADVANCED SYSTEMS AT MIT WORKED AND THE MIT PEOPLE CAME AND SAID "WE CAN'T DO THIS" MUCH THE WHOLE MEETING WAS IN SHAMBLES. I WAS A LOT YOUNGER THEN AND IT RATTLED ME. SOMEBODY TOOK ME ASIDE AND SAID "YOU WILL GET THROUGH THIS." SURE ENOUGH, THE PROTOCOLS GOT REBUILT, AND THE ARPANET GOT BUILT AND LOTS OF THINGS HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THEN.

WE CAN MAKE THIS WORK, AND WE CAN MAKE THIS WORK WELL ENOUGH. I WAS VERY, VERY PLEASED TO SEE THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT WERE BEING DISCUSSED BEFORE LUNCH. TO MY EYE, THEY WERE MORE SIMILAR THAN DIFFERENT, DIFFERED IN SOME DETAILS. AND ONE OF THE TEST QUESTIONS I ASKED: WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY? AND THERE WERE ANSWERS. IT WASN'T ZERO. AND I THINK THAT'S FINE. I THINK THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT ONE COULD ARGUE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF IT WAS DONE DIFFERENTLY, AND THAT'S FINE.

BUT I THINK WE WANT TO DO IT IN A MEASURED AND INCREMENTAL WAY AND WITH THE COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS. WE'VE HAD THE ATRT REVIEWS. WE'VE HAD THE STRUCTURAL REVIEWS. WE'D HAD PLENTY -- WE HAVE ALL OF THE ADVICE THAT COMES IN FROM THE ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND WE HAVE THE POLICIES THAT COME UP FROM THE SOs. THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS THAT WILL GO ON TOMORROW AND THE NEXT DAY AND THE NEXT DAY. AND IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL THAT WE GRAB HOLD OF EVERY SORT OF THING AND MAKE IT ALL HAPPEN NOW.

SO I WANTED TO CONVEY THAT. I WANTED TO CONVEY THAT THE BOARD IS DEEPLY INVESTED IN TRYING TO BE HELPFUL, IF WE CAN, STAYING OUT OF THE WAY IF THAT'S THE BEST THING TO DO. BUT WE'RE NOT TO BORROW A PHRASE FROM SOME YEARS AGO, WE ARE NOT POTTED PLANTS. WE ARE NOT JUST SITTING HERE PASSIVELY. WE ARE VERY HEAVILY ENGAGED. AND WE HAVE QUITE HEAVY RESPONSIBILITIES. AND THOSE WILL GET EXPRESSED AS THEY ARE -- AS I'M TRYING TO DO NOW AND THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST, AND THEY WILL CONTINUE AS WE GO.

AND WE ARE HOPING VERY STRONGLY THAT WE ARE NOT PUT INTO A POSITION OF HAVING TO MAKE REALLY TOUGH DECISIONS OR GET INTO A "IT'S THAT OR THAT" SORT OF THING. BUT, IF NECESSARY, ALL OF US ARE SEASONED ADULTS AND WE TAKE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES QUITE HEAVILY AND WE DON'T HAVE CONSEQUENCES EXCEPT TO OUR OWN PERSONAL REPUTATIONS OR CONSCIENCE THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH PERHAPS. WE WILL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY, WHEN IT'S NECESSARY. WE DON'T WANT TO CONVEY THAT AS A THREAT, MORE AS A PLEA, SORT OF "PLEASE DON'T THROW US INTO THAT BRIAR PATCH" IF YOU WILL. ..." (emphasis added) (Note: This transcription may be incomplete/inaccurate--a final reviewed transcript will be posted on CCWG Wiki)

See also on Domain Mondo:




DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2015-03-23

GAC Contribution to the CCWG on ICANN Accountability f2f Meeting

Government Advisory Committee: GAC contribution to the CCWG accountability f2f meeting in Istanbul, 23-24 March 2015--emphasis added--

• ICANN should operate in accordance with a set of basic principles, providing inter alia for:

o A concise description of its limited mandate and a clear commitment to operate within it.

o Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.

o A guarantee of its multistakeholder nature, as a not-for-profit organisation with stakeholder communities worldwide, including with representation from developed and developing countries, contributing to a transparent, bottom-up policy development processes, duly taking into account the advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy issues.

o Principles of checks and balances, strengthened rules on conflicts of interests, good governance and with clearly implementable, transparent, efficient and verifiable accountability mechanisms. Consistent with these principles, ICANN should have policies that are predictable, transparent, necessary and sufficient, and should institute effective compliance monitoring and consistent enforcement mechanisms.

o ICANN should be based on principles of continuous improvement, with regular community-led and independent reviews of its key governance structures and processes

o Obligation to serve the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet. The concept of public interest should be seen as encompassing the larger interests of the different communities affected by ICANN’s processes and not be limited to the interests and objectives of any particular group or set of stakeholders. In this regard, ICANN should be open, inclusive and with institutional safeguards that prevent capture by any specific sector or community interests.

o Obligation to duly respect principles of international law and human rights, as well as national laws applicable to the matters under consideration. ICANN should commit to sharing information regarding issues within its mandate, as part of a positive dialogue with other international and global organisations working on and with interests in internet governance.

o Facilitating cultural, gender, geographic and linguistic diversity and representation in all of its activities.

• ICANN’s mechanisms for review, reconsideration and redress should be continuously improved, taking into account considerations of timeliness, effectiveness, affordability, neutrality and independence to more effectively meet ICANN’s commitment to accountability.

• Likewise, the GAC is of the view that the CCWG elaborate on the implications for ICANN’s mission and its accountability associated with jurisdictional differences among the actors involved and legal jurisdictional aspects applicable to ICANN.


Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Domain Mondo archive