<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Farzi,</p>
<p>As David pointed out yesterday, most of the Board question
appears to be directed at Small Team *on the GNSO Council.* Do you
want to add anything about that? Aren't we concerned about that?</p>
<p>As for the below, I'm not sure this is right. In narrow areas of
intractability - where the Multistakeholder process truly cannot
reach a decision (as was the case in Closed Generics) and you have
to push forward with some resolution, what do you do? In this
case, the GAC has a lot of say since they wrote the Beijing GAC
Advice 2013 that helped stopped Closed Generics and said the
fateful (but rather ambiguous words) that "exclusive use gTLDs"
(closed generics) need to "serve a public interest." But what is
that public interest? It's the GAC who needs to explain their own
advice, and like anything else in a policy process, that's
complicated and hard. <br>
</p>
<p>In this case, Can't we give some credit to the Board? The last
time (2015), they took unilateral action to ban Closed Generics,
but this time, they are trying not to take unilateral action. If
the Small Team concept can get the Community past a very
narrowly-defined bottleneck, that may be a <b>good idea. </b><br>
</p>
<p>The other is that we - as a Community - <b>have criticized GAC
and ALAC </b><b><i>for coming in at the very end of a policy
process and providing major input. </i></b>So now GAC/ALAC
are being asked to come in earlier so that their concerns can be
factored into the process before the Policy Development Process
Working Group dissolves. Isn't it a little unfair to condemn them
for doing what we (as a Community) have asked them to do? <br>
</p>
<p>**Plus, I was wondering <i>from our Councilors </i>whether we
should voice any concerns about GNSO Council Small Teams? <b><i>I
worry here that this is a problem as it is a) a new Council
method which seems to be operating without checks and balances
and b) something that means NCSG has one (rather than six)
people involved in a process - a serious imbalanced on these
Council Small Teams and likely to lead to a real problem if
these Council Small Teams grow in number or do serious
procedural business. Shouldn't the Council be working as a
Council (as the full Council has a balance and checks in its
current structure)?<br>
</i></b></p>
<p>Best, Kathy<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/12/2023 6:26 PM, farzaneh badii
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN1qJvC3s1xZerRpZp96T=_Jhr_-BRWjFeEzWxDf9o6CrtDi0g@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">Here is the relevant part of our letter:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div style="border-color:rgb(255,255,255)" dir="auto">“3. Such
‘facilitated dialogue’ is giving GAC a more pronounced role in
policy making than its advisory role as mandated in ICANN
Bylaw.</div>
<div style="border-color:rgb(255,255,255)" dir="auto">GAC is
welcome to engage in the policy development process in the
early stage as any other SO/ACs in order to ensure a policy
outcome that takes the multistakeholder perspective into
account.</div>
<div style="border-color:rgb(255,255,255)" dir="auto">That said,
it is important and critical that we honour the distinct
responsibilities and roles between the GNSO as the
policy-making body and GAC as an advisory committee.</div>
<div style="border-color:rgb(255,255,255)" dir="auto">And for
that, it is critical that we make sure the multistakeholder
model is fair and balanced. Current practice of ACs
participating in consensus vote in PDPs while still enjoying
the privilege of having their advice as carrying some kind of
different weight than the policy recommendations is creating
an asymmetrical power relation among AC and SO. This uneven
balance can negatively impact the legitimacy and
accountability of ICANN’s multistakeholder model.</div>
<div style="border-color:rgb(255,255,255)" dir="auto">In light
of the above mentioned, it remains unclear how a facilitated
dialogue as proposed can create any other outcome than what
the SubPro couldn’t have achieved with 5 years of hard work.
On that note, the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group would also
like to note that this ‘facilitated dialogue’ can create a
dangerous precedent of re-opening issues. The community should
learn to accept the product of difficult compromise. And we
should all learn to draw the line of when policy
recommendations are made and resolved by Council/Board, they
are regarded and respected as Consensus Policy.</div>
<div style="border-color:rgb(255,255,255)" dir="auto">The NCSG
understands that the issue of Closed Generics remains without
an explicit GNSO recommendation as reported in the SubPro
Final Report. However, rather than inventing processes and
setting a dangerous precedent, we propose using a more
balanced multi stakeholder approach in seeking input on this
topic. Therefore, we urge the GNSO to reconsider its support
to the proposed dialogue.</div>
<div style="border-color:rgb(255,255,255)" dir="auto">3</div>
<div style="border-color:rgb(255,255,255)" dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div style="border-color:rgb(255,255,255)" dir="auto"> Non-Commercial
Stakeholders Group</div>
<div style="border-color:rgb(255,255,255)" dir="auto">Representing
the interests and concerns of non-commercial Internet users in
domain name policy</div>
<div style="border-color:rgb(255,255,255)" dir="auto">Therefore,
instead of pursuing a ‘closed dialogue’ with the GAC where the
scope and interlocutors are dictated by the ICANN Board, the
NCSG encourages the GNSO to seek community comments and
perspectives on how to proceed with Closed Generics throughout
the already established participatory mechanisms used by the
ICANN community (i.e. public comments and PDPs). We trust that
a broader conversation can serve as a good experience to
collect the main issues and concerns around this topic, as
well as guidance to the GNSO Council members responsible for
leading this debate internally - should it occur despite our
deep concerns for the ICANN Multistakeholder model and
precedent. How else will this small team - some with very
long-held personal views on the subject - be bound to a
discussion on behalf of the entire GNSO Community?”</div>
<div style="border-color:rgb(255,255,255)" dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div style="border-color:rgb(255,255,255)" dir="auto">What was
the board response? We should draft our response considering
that too. </div>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:17
PM farzaneh badii <<a
href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">farzaneh.badii@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div dir="auto">If Tomslin has the time to do it I think he
is better placed because he was also involved with our
objection to creating the closed generic group. </div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Mar 12, 2023
at 5:14 PM Johan Helsingius <<a
href="mailto:julf@julf.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">julf@julf.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">On
12/03/2023 17:09, farzaneh badii wrote:<br>
> I will do the response wording to the board and
send it to the mailing <br>
> list. Ill do that tonight hopefully.<br>
<br>
Great! Thanks!!<br>
<br>
Julf<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"
face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>