[NCUC-DISCUSS] Summary of GNSO leadership call of 5 Aug, on governance and WS2 updates

Tue Aug 24 11:10:40 EEST 2021

Hello, all, happy to help coordinate these efforts.

I have just opened a google docs placeholder for us to start drafting it:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S6_YV-UDyn_6bjvuvZPPUwwXP7zmiNFbXT5GmdphgM4/edit

Do we have an additional volunteers to help draft the letter? Once we have
the letter ready I can suggest a communication for us to send to ISPCP and
the RySG.

Best,
B

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:14 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for your input Farzaneh.
>
> I am transferring this thread over to the NCSG mailing list to further
> discuss and coordinate the drafting.
>
> Do note that in the next 10 days or so there will be a call between RIWG
> representatives and SG/Cs leadership. While the two letters on the table
> here are not conditioned on whatever may transpire from that meeting, it
> may further inform our stance. The EC will report on that meeting as with
> the previous ones.
>
> Have a nice day,
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 23:49 Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Farzaneh
>> +1
>> ___________________
>> REMMY NWEKE,  *mNUJ, mNGE, mGOCOP*
>> Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor,
>> *ITREALMS Media* group [*Multiple-award winning medium*]
>> (ITREALMS <http://www.itrealms.com.ng/>, DigitalSENSE Business Magazine
>> <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; NaijaAgroNet
>> <http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng/>)
>> No. 39 Daudu Street, Oshodi-Lagos
>> M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, T: @ITRealms
>> <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms>
>> @DigitalSENSEng
>> 2021 *Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D*, Thursday June 10
>> <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/>
>> 2021 *ITREALMS* e-Waste Dialogue, Thursday December 14
>> <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/>
>> @GOLDEN Tulip Hotels, Int'l Airport Road, Lagos
>> <https://www.google.com.ng/travel/hotels/entity/CgoIo7qitJKSz_N2EAE?utm_campaign=sharing&utm_medium=link&utm_source=htls&ved=0CAAQ5JsGahcKEwi4nf7LzeLwAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA&ts=CAESABogCgIaABIaEhQKBwjlDxAFGBoSBwjlDxAFGBsYATICEAAqCQoFOgNVU0QaAA>
>> Former Vice President, African Civil Society on Information Society
>> (ACSIS)
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and
>> attachments
>> are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended
>> only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept
>> legal
>> responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the
>> intended
>> recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do
>> not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make
>> any copies. Violators may face court persecution.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 2:49 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Raphael.
>>>
>>> I looked over the objections from last year. I am not surprised by
>>> IPC/BC response, they have always had an obvious interest in being overly
>>> represented on NomCom while it is obviously unfair.
>>>
>>> I am surprised by ISPCP and the registry stakeholder group.
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Implementation+-+Outreach
>>>
>>> First of all, I believe that the Board's fear of the empowered community
>>> is misplaced. By design the empowered community can be initiated easily but
>>> to get it finished they need others support which is not that easy to
>>> obtain. I might be wrong. But I would like to hear more from the Board.
>>> Secondly, how are we supposed to fix a wrong right by not being blocked all
>>> the time by those who actually benefit from this unfairness?
>>>
>>>   I think we need to reach out to the registry stakeholder group and the
>>> ISPCP and ask them why they think it is fine that the noncommercials be
>>> under-represented on NomCom. Why do we need another group to study the
>>> imbalance (RySG recommends this). It's obvious that there is an imbalance.
>>> No need to ask IPC and BC. We know their rationale.
>>>
>>> Can we also write a letter to the Board? This issue can also be dealt
>>> with at the NCSG level because this is about the imbalance of
>>> representation between the commercial stakeholder group and the
>>> noncommercial stakeholder group on NomCom.
>>>
>>> Lets:
>>> - write a letter to the Board
>>> - talk to ISPCP and the RySG (or write to them)
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 8:38 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
>>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Farzaneh
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the RIWG, they (apparently) have not consulted since the
>>>> feedback was sent by various groups a year ago. No one knows what was done
>>>> with that feedback. Specifically it was feedback from IPC and BC, and a few
>>>> others; that feedback was negative, and the Board does not want to adopt a
>>>> resolution that would contain the bylaws change wrt to the NomCom, just to
>>>> have it become a mess at the Empowered Community step, because several Cs
>>>> feel their feedback was disregarded in its entirety.
>>>>
>>>> That being said, that is my understanding based on the discussions
>>>> during the call. I don't know the rest of the story and haven't followed up
>>>> with NomCom review and the RIWG, and so cannot really say more on that. So
>>>> the issue is not that something has been decided, I think, but more that
>>>> the RIWG has been more or less silent for a year, or so.
>>>>
>>>> As for WS2 it's also hard to elaborate on that more without having had
>>>> a look at what Org has in store re their "triage document" or however they
>>>> want to call it. They refused to elaborate during the GNSO leadership call,
>>>> despite the repeated demands by the ISPCP, Bruna, me, and a few others. I
>>>> honestly don't know what recommendations are the responsibility of
>>>> the community, as I said. So we'll see when said document comes out, and
>>>> then we can come back on both jurisdiction and HRs.
>>>>
>>>> Once we have that document out re WS2, we can come back to Board or Org
>>>> on those two that were more important for us. As for the RIWG, I'd rather
>>>> understand where they stand and what's going on before taking action...
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 3:18 PM farzaneh badii <
>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Raphael,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to NomCom, I do not understand what the Board is arguing here. It's
>>>>> not clear that RIWG has reached out to the community and consulted? How did
>>>>> they come to that conclusion? The RIWG did various consultations with
>>>>> different groups and the imbalance between the representation of
>>>>> commercials and noncommercials is very clear. If the NomCom review and RIWG
>>>>> can't fix an unfairness in representation that is so apparent, why are we
>>>>> even doing such expensive reviews? Is there a resolution or Board's minutes
>>>>> about this? Perhaps we can have a meeting with Matt Shears, the appointed
>>>>> NCPH board member?
>>>>>
>>>>> As to the WS2, I see no mention of Jurisdiction. There is quite a lot
>>>>> for Org to do for the Jurisdiction issue. Where are we on that? It's true
>>>>> that OFAC is a complex and long process but it's been three years since we
>>>>> submitted a recommendation to ICANN to find ways to apply for OFAC license.
>>>>> The new gTLDs that have a direct relationship with the domain name
>>>>> registrants have confiscated and cancelled people's domain names in
>>>>> sanctioned countries. That even applies to the Public Interest Registry
>>>>> .NGO... they don't even allow people in sanctioned countries to register a
>>>>> .NGO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another is the Human Rights which I have not followed. Is that the
>>>>> community responsibility too?
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest we have a meeting about both issues with the GNSO Board
>>>>> members or send them a letter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:32 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
>>>>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please find below a summary of the most important points that were
>>>>>> discussed during the GNSO leadership call that took place last week re WS2
>>>>>> implementation, NomCom review, and a few other matters, on 5 Aug. Several
>>>>>> persons from Org intervened on the call.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have a nice day,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- The NomCom RIWG has not been reporting for several months, and
>>>>>> specifically it is not quite known at the community level what they
>>>>>> did with the (overall negative) feedback they got on the
>>>>>> implementation plan for the NomCom review, about a year ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a reminder, neither NCUC nor NCSG, nor NPOC submitted comments on
>>>>>> that plan. The main change being considered is changing the allocation of
>>>>>> seats within the GNSO, and not changing the total number of GNSO seats on
>>>>>> the NomCom. Hence, the GNSO would have to figure out by itself who to
>>>>>> allocate its seven seats to and on what basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Board will not move with the required Bylaw amendments regarding
>>>>>> the NomCom as long as it's not clear whether the RIWG has properly reached
>>>>>> out and consulted the community. It obviously does not want to have
>>>>>> the Empowered Community shut down the Bylaws amendments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- There is a "triage document" that will come out of Org Soon(TM)
>>>>>> regarding WS2 recommendations implementation, for those
>>>>>> recommendations that are the responsibility of C/SG/SO. Org seems quite
>>>>>> adamant that there is a lot for the community to do. Still, despite
>>>>>> several questions from different parts of the GNSO, we couldn't get any
>>>>>> specifics on this. It took staff more than 15 mins just to tell us the
>>>>>> document in question is not ready yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In case you missed it, here is where Org stands with the
>>>>>> implementation of its "own" WS2 recommendations, from last May
>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/an-update-on-work-stream-2-
>>>>>> implementation-4-3-2021-en
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Additionally, we had a discussion, probably more than a year ago,
>>>>>> regarding WS2 recommendations implementation, where it was clear that most
>>>>>> of the recommendations were for the Board and Org to implement... We will
>>>>>> have to wait and see what is in that document.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>

-- 

*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

Advocacy Coordinator | Data Privacy Brazil Research
<https://www.dataprivacybr.org/en/>

Member | Coalizão Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg>
Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus  <https://igcaucus.org/>

Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins> // Skype:
bruna.martinsantos
bruna at dataprivacybr.org and bruna.mrtns at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210824/ca0d5730/attachment.htm>