[CCWG-ACCT] Clarifying the Observer Role in the Subgroups

Sun Aug 14 15:52:59 UTC 2016

I speak only for myself.
I am a long standing participant at ICANN. 
In fact, I have to take the recognition that some of the modalities that we work under today came from ideas that I may have sifted out from lots of debates among those that were there, engaging...  but were fine tuned with lots of other voices and ideas. :-)
Recently, the ICANN community has improved on how we [the ICANN community] develop the governance for ourselves at ICANN. I saw an interesting exchange, so I will offer my small perspective.
Yes, ICANN is the surrogate for harsher and more governmental regulation.  We all agreed to that model, back in 1998, and we have struggled to make it 'so' over these years. 
As I have said before: ISPs and others have to get an accreditation or a license in a country to do business. ICANN provides an umbrella with the gTLDs registries and registrars that puts them into a unique self governance category. Accepting that means that ICANN enforces the contracts, and the parties to the contract step up their compliance. 
BUT, when I look at the larger IG eco system, I see in my view, that ICANN has to sit within that. Understanding its narrow, but critical role, and functions, and understanding that it needs to show up.  this is not about expansion. It is about clearly saying this is what we do. This is what we do not do. BUT, we are part of IG. 
So, back to roles.
I am an observer. If I feel so compelled to post then, I can send a request to a co chair, to ask to have an individual post shared. I leave it with them. 
I do want to say something about the concern that being paid is a bad thing. It is not. People who are paid just need to declare their funding, and recuse themselves in discussions that are conflicts of interest. 
We should respect that some who participate have agendas. Let's just make sure we all declare our agendas in our SOIs for the WG. 
Long ago, everytime you spoke at the public forum, you were expected to say: My name is. I work for /or I am funded by, or I am affiliated with XXXXXX. Then you got to speak. Somehow we lost that. :-) Perhaps in the wg, we should practice what we preach: 
Introduce yourself. Don't assume that everyone knows what /who you are representing. 
I value the opportunity to be an observer.
I guess I need to say one more thing. Some have heard me. We are not volunteers. We are developing standards and directly related policies. The engineers that work at the IETF are not called volunteers. Those who work at the ITU Study groups are not called volunteers. 
They are called members, or participants, or observers.  Being a non paid participant /unaffiliated with a contracted party is an additional burden but actually is a critical role, as without it, there would be a possibility of a colusion of only contracted  parties and ICANN, which will put the Contracted parties at great risk, and also put ICANN at great risk. So, ensuring that there is user engagement is a critical success factor for this model.
I 

> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 10:31:22 -0500
> From: cveraq at gmail.com
> To: avri at apc.org; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Clarifying the Observer Role in the Subgroups
> 
> Volunteers has different ‎faces: 
> 
> 1. Some are Professionals involved in the filed of work of each group or sub group. Their real interest is to improve their profesional skills and use the experience and material for their job or academic role. They are active Participants because they work with a volunteer hat. Sometimes this can be dangerous because they have enterprises or organizations they work for and of course because they get paid, the volunteer and Active working is a real job instead.. 
> 
> 2. Citizens or users working in the real interest of civil Society.  ‎Not always actively participating because not always have the expertise or time to do so and have real Jobs to attend not related with this groups so they really volunteer dedicating time and effort to actively participate, even ocasionally.
> 
> In my particular situation I'm in the second group and dedicate some of my free time here, i'm an observer most of time until some issue like this one come to me and motivate to participate. 
> 
> I'm in favor of No penalties for a "lack of participation" nor a prize for "volunteer hat"
> 
> Carlos Vera
> Isoc Ecuador
> 
> Enviado desde mi smartphone BlackBerry 10.
>   Mensaje original  
> De: avri doria
> Enviado: domingo, 14 de agosto de 2016 10:03
> Para: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Clarifying the Observer Role in the Subgroups
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Perhaps there is a level of participation between passive Observation
> and commitment to all meetings and hard work.
> 
> I think this is achieved by attending calls we are interested in,
> marking ourselves as (observer)s and listening. I think the chat allows
> a form of comment that does not grab the microphone but which does allow
> an occasional comment. Personally I watch the schedule and figure I can
> AC into any meeting that interests me, but not activate my microphone
> when calling myslef an Observer. 
> 
> I think we might be sending the wrong message if we say there is a
> binary choice: you have to be full-in like the more dedicated
> participants, or sit quietly until the work is done. 
> 
> However, if the only penalty for weak participation is a bad attendance
> report, then please switch me to participant in all groups.
> 
> thanks
> avri
> 
> On 14-Aug-16 10:34, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
> > Greg et al.,
> >
> > Answers inserted in your questions below but it is important to note
> > the the role of Observers was meant to be just that:
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> > <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Co-Chairs and Staff,
> >
> > We need some clarification of the Observer role in the Subgroups. 
> >
> > Conceptually, are the Observers essentially "spectators" or do
> > they have the ability to participate in some fashion?
> >
> > Specifically:
> >
> > 1. Will Observers get call invitations?
> >
> >
> > No - in part this is because there is no way to distinguish between
> > Observers and Participants on teleconferences or in Adobe - as such
> > if Observers were to participate in these there would be no point in
> > having the differentiation between Observers and Active Participants.
> > It is however important to note that there is no restrictions on who
> > can be an Active Participant or an Observer and that people can join
> > either or switch between them at any time. I will copy below the
> > published definitions of these here to remind people of the difference
> > between these two:
> >
> > * As an active participant who wishes to engage in the day-to-day
> > discussions of the particular topic. Each active participant is
> > expected to spend at least 3-5 hours per week on sub-group work
> > and will have posting rights to the mailing list.
> > * As an observer who wishes to follow the topic discussion but not
> > actively participate at the sub-group level. Observers are not
> > expected to spend time on sub-group work and will not have posting
> > rights to the mailing list.
> >
> > 
> >
> > 2. Can Observers join Adobe Connect and/or phone bridge for the call?
> >
> >
> > That is up to the rapporteurs for that group as staff will not police
> > this - but again since calls are being recorded, transcribed and notes
> > taken it was felt observers would not be deprived of any information.
> > 
> > 
> >
> > 3. If yes, can Observers speak and/or write in the chat, or are
> > they required to be silent/non-participating?
> >
> >
> > As noted above there is no automated way of , and staff will not
> > police, enforcing any limitation on Observers in Adobe, as such there
> > is nothing which would prevent them from fully participating.
> > 
> > 
> >
> > 4. Do Observers receive the mailing list posts along with
> > everyone else?
> >
> >
> > Yes.
> > 
> > 
> >
> > 5. Will Observers have posting rights to the email list?
> >
> >
> > No.
> >
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > B.
> > 
> >
> >
> > Clarification of these specific issues as soon as possible will be
> > most helpful to the functioning of the Subgroups.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160814/8a563421/attachment-0001.html>