Private Calls for NCSG Leadership Committees

[Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix]

Hi Milton, all

Yes I've taken note of that.

Have a nice day,

On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 12:02 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> Amr, thanks
>
> I am at a loss to understand why none of us involved in EPDP were informed
> by the chair of the NCSG about the meeting. Sending out a notice is a very
> simple function. The possibility of discussing things with GNSO board
> members is _*VERY*_ important right now because the Whois Phase 2 final
> report is before the Council and the board will have to make some judgments
> about how to handle it when the Council passes it. I am very disappointed
> to learn that we lost an opportunity to meet with GNSO board members.
>
>
>
> At the very least, can our newly elected SG and Constituency officers take
> note of this? This (relaying notice of meetings to the list) is the kind of
> thing you will be expected to do.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of *Amr
> Elsadr
> *Sent:* Friday, July 31, 2020 6:35 AM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: Private Calls for NCSG Leadership Committees
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> You couldn’t be more wrong on all counts, Raoul.
>
>
>
> This wasn’t an NCSG EC/Board meeting…, and in all my years with the NCSG,
> I’ve never heard of any such meeting take place. There are regular open
> NCSG/Board Meetings at ICANN public meetings, which anybody (you don’t even
> need to be an NCSG member) may attend. This wasn’t one of those, though.
> This was another kind of meeting we also used to regularly have, which is a
> small informal meeting between NCSG members and Board members from the GNSO
> (CPH and NCPH appointees). These also used to take place at ICANN public
> meetings, traditionally over breakfast, and were never limited to NCSG
> leadership participation only. We even had Fellows and Next-Gen
> participants attend those in the past. Basically…, anybody who was willing
> to get up a little early and go to that breakfast. I don’t know where you
> got the *“This has been going on for many years already and business as
> usual”* from, but that’s a factually incorrect statement. Like I said,
> these have always been informal meetings, and never recorded or anything…,
> but still very important.
>
>
>
> Also, when you frame my concern as one of “transparency”, and claim it’s
> overblown, it makes me think you either stopped reading my email halfway
> through, or you just completely missed the point I was making. I never
> claimed that there is a transparency (or lack thereof) issue. Never even
> mentioned the word in my email, so please don’t make this about something
> it’s not.
>
>
>
> My concern is with how the NCSG’s leadership is organizing these meetings
> in ways that are counter-productive to the work being done by our members.
> I gave the EPDP and ATRT as examples of where we have members actively
> working on issues, where interaction with the Board is vital to how we make
> strategic plans about the actual work we are doing moving forward.
>
>
>
> This isn’t about virtual handshakes and photo ops (or screenshots). This
> is about engaging with the Board members we appoint on critical issues like
> how they’re going to deal with a final report that the NCSG really needs to
> see adopted, when we have “divergence” on 2 of the recommendations in that
> report by the EPDP Team. It’s about engaging with them on their plans to
> work these issues out with the ACs (ALAC, GAC and SSAC) that are doing
> everything they can to sink all the work done over the past 2 years on that
> EPDP, so that they can work these issues out in closed rooms with the Board
> and staff, and exclude the NCSG from these discussions altogether. Y’know…,
> real NCSG work stuff, Raoul?
>
>
>
> When Matthew Shears was up for reappointment by the NCPH, I specifically
> asked him to make sure to hold these meetings with the NCSG in order to
> have an opportunity to discuss these very issues, and he complied. It’s our
> own Executive Committee that failed to announce the meeting to the general
> membership. That doesn’t mean there was lack of transparency. The call was
> announced on the EC mailing list, which is publicly archived.
>
>
>
> You also seem to have selectively ignored the second call we were not
> invited to, which was a call with a candidate from the ISPCP Constituency
> running for GNSO Chair. I hope I don’t need to explain the relevance of
> attending a call concerning that election to you. If you feel I do, I’d be
> happy to. Now that Maryam has circulated the recording and attendance of
> that call, it’s clear that the majority of our Councilors did not attend
> it, including the incoming Councilors who will be voting for and working
> with the new GNSO Chair. I always have a checklist of promises I ask
> candidates for GNSO Chair to make, such as a commitment to guard the GNSO’s
> right to develop gTLD policy recommendations, which is a right always under
> attack by ICANN ACs. If a candidate is not willing to publicly make this
> commitment (as an example), I normally advise our Councilors to not back
> him/her as a candidate.
>
>
>
> So, Raoul…, are you getting a picture of what the big deal is?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Amr
>
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2020, at 11:32 AM, Raoul Plommer <plommer at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think this demand for transparency is somewhat overblown here, Amr. The
> board has gotten together with NCSG EC and its chairs like with all the
> other SGs. What's the big deal? This has been going on for many years
> already and business as usual as far as I can see.
>
>
>
> -Raoul
>
>
>
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 06:58, Olivier Kouami <olivierkouami at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> +1 @Amr.
>
>
>
> Warm regards
>
> Olévié
>
>
>
> Le jeu. 30 juil. 2020 à 12:40, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> a
> écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> From looking at the NCSG EC Archive (
> https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2020-July/date.html), I see that
> there are a couple of calls that are taking place without any notice or
> invitation being sent to our general membership. I, for one, would have
> liked to attend both calls, and don’t understand why they’ve been kept from
> us regular members by the NCSG EC.
>
>
>
> The first call, held yesterday (29 July) was apparently with Matthew
> Shears, and possibly other ICANN Board members too. I recall holding a call
> with Matthew when he was up for reelection by the NCPH (we were invited to
> that call, thankfully), and recall specifically asking him to hold periodic
> calls with our members as a means to keep in touch, and facilitate
> communication with the NCSG. Matthew seems to be doing his part, but we’ve
> been excluded form participation by our own SG’s leadership (a presumption
> on my part, so please correct me if I’m mistaken).
>
>
>
> Right now would have been a really good time to engage with our Board
> members, especially considering the EPDP finalizing its Phase 2 final
> report, and the Board having a seemingly strong opinion on one of the
> recommendations, which conflicts with our own. There may be other topics of
> importance to our members, like the recent ATRT recommendations, and what
> the Board’s consideration of those will mean to the ICANN MSM.
>
>
>
> Earlier today, it seems like a second call was also held (or was at least
> scheduled to be) with colleagues in the CSG regarding the election of a new
> GNSO Chair. Again…, this is an issue of great importance to NCSG members,
> particularly those who are engaged in policy development in the GNSO. Why
> were we not invited to attend this call as well? I hope that the NCSG’s new
> incoming Council representatives were at least invited to this second call,
> since they will be expected to work with the new GNSO Chair, and will also
> be expected to vote in this election.
>
>
>
> I find this kind of disregard to our members’ participation to be
> incredibly counter-productive to the work we do, and don’t really care for
> explanations or excuses. I’d just really like to see it stop.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Amr
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200802/576088b1/attachment.htm>