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

Tue Oct 12 07:17:52 EEST 2021

Hi,

Just following up. Were the letters sent?

On Sunday, September 19, 2021, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I mostly agree with what you have suggested Raphael. Thanks for taking the
> time.
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 6:52 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I have made substantial edits to the ISPCP letter in line with
>> my suggestions above, keeping in mind that most of it could be used for the
>> CPH with some minor edits.
>>
>> I would suggest that you all have a look at it quickly, so that it could
>> pass by the PC before being sent to its addressees.
>>
>> I'll let Bruna manage the timeline on that.
>>
>> Have a nice day,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 10:38 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> I agree with the substance of the comments regarding the lack of
>>> representation of non commercial interests at the nomcom; this is something
>>> that needs to be corrected.
>>>
>>> My current preoccupation is more one of immediate process. I do not
>>> think it is wise to try to further delay or stall the RIWG recommendations
>>> and the bylaw changes, even though they do not in fact effectuate the
>>> change in the nomcom composition or amount of members we would have wanted
>>> to.  I bring this up, because that is precisely what CSG wants to achieve,
>>> not because I think anyone here necessarily wants to stall that process;
>>> although if you do, that's what we'd need to discuss.
>>>
>>> CSG failed to get what they wanted at the RIWG level, and so will most
>>> likely try to use the GNSO to effectuate the stall or torpedo in a more
>>> indirect way.
>>>
>>> Letting the process move forwards, with the bylaws stating that the GNSO
>>> has seven seats it must apportion the way it wants to, implies taking our
>>> "nomcom representation fight" more squarely to the GNSO, at least the GNSO
>>> "level," (SG/C leadership,) if not the Council.
>>>
>>> The GNSO may not be the best forum, that much is true, but neither is
>>> trying to push in a last minute rewrite of the RIWG recommendations,
>>> especially because the rewrite *we *would want is at the opposite of
>>> the rewrite CSG wants: they want the current composition to be set in stone
>>> in the bylaws, plain and simple. I think they would concede a "transfer" of
>>> the single NCUC seat to NCSG, but that's just my guess. That would hardly
>>> get us any further, though.
>>>
>>> So letters, yes, but I think they would have more impact if they were to
>>> be clearly situated in the current "procedural context" and would be
>>> reflective of the more immediate question that is on the table, that is,
>>> that of the RIWG recommendation and bylaw changes.
>>>
>>> I can suggest wording accordingly in the google doc over the course of
>>> the week.
>>>
>>> have a nice day,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 3:27 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos <
>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> I don't think anyone on this thread is trying to foster "in house
>>>> divides among NCSG '' but truly discuss something that has been discussed
>>>> over and over again by previous leadership, that is the need to rebalance
>>>> the nomcom seats in order to achieve fairer selection processes.
>>>>
>>>> And as others have pointed out here, the idea is not purely to make
>>>> sure we have good board candidates but to make sure we also have non
>>>> commercial representatives participating at the selection process in order
>>>> to avoid any possible bias or lack of people pointing out our views and
>>>> concerns. The non-commercial community at ICANN (and GNSO) is purely made
>>>> by the NCSG and its constituencies but the point is that this is not truly
>>>> conveyed at the current nomcom seats composition. And if we don't get
>>>> enough people that know and care about this community and have our voice in
>>>> such processes we will always be outvoted - and it won't matter how
>>>> outstanding our candidates are...
>>>>
>>>> Having said that, should we move on with the emails/letters ?
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>> Bruna
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:03 PM Olivier Kouami <
>>>> olivierkouami at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Greetings everyone.
>>>>> Please, I just want someone here to confirm if these equations below
>>>>> are correctly disposed.
>>>>>
>>>>> NCSG = NCUC + NPOC
>>>>> NCUC = NCSG - NPOC
>>>>> NPOC = NCSG - NCUC
>>>>>
>>>>> If true, what is
>>>>>  NCSG - (NCUC + NPOC) =?
>>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>> Warm regards
>>>>> Olévié
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le sam. 11 sept. 2021 à 22:54, Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> a
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Bruna
>>>>>> Sorry I did not understand what you meant on respecting your opinion.
>>>>>> As much as all of us may be clamouring for rebalancing its important
>>>>>> we do that with sincerity of purpose and open arms to those our sister
>>>>>> constituencies who literally have not been given the opportunity to
>>>>>> represent  NCSG and equally find a way of rebalancing in-house divides
>>>>>> among NCSG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021, 18:12 farzaneh badii, <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Raymond,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps it makes sense if I provide some background here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - The reason to request for remedying this imbalance is not to have
>>>>>>> a certain constituency have a representative on the Board. That's not what
>>>>>>> NomCom does and we are well aware of this and never even claimed such a
>>>>>>> thing. We asked for an equal number of appointees, whatever the result of
>>>>>>> the NomCom Board selection might be. As the letters clearly say it's the
>>>>>>> matter of noncommercial voice being underrepresented. That could include
>>>>>>> the technical community and others too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Just for your information, we (the Noncontracted Party House,
>>>>>>> means CSG as well) together appoint a Board member. At the moment it's Matt
>>>>>>> Sheares.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - this is not only about NomCom. It sets a bad precedent and it
>>>>>>> leads to power plays. Even the independent reviewers pointed out the
>>>>>>> imbalance as we did many times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has been a long term struggle. We raised it in 2017 with the
>>>>>>> Board (Raoul did) and they said well raise it during NomCom review. If we
>>>>>>> can't fix such an apparent inequality I don't know what we can fix in this
>>>>>>> ICANN world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 12:55 PM Raymond Mamattah <
>>>>>>> mamattah.raymond at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Caleb,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You might want to read my email again.  This is what I wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *1. If our view of getting NPOC on the NomCom is to enable us NPOC
>>>>>>>> members to get more roles in the ICANN Board and other leadership roles
>>>>>>>> then in my opinion, it is dead on arrival.  *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *2. Rather let us encourage NPOC members to apply for such roles
>>>>>>>> when the opportunity presents itself, not the other way round. *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I clearly indicated that *IF *our wish as NPOC to get a seat on
>>>>>>>> NomCom is to enable more members to get Board roles and other roles then it
>>>>>>>> wont work. Rather members should be encouraged to apply for those roles.
>>>>>>>> Having an NPOC rep on the NomCom doesn't mean the person is going to do the
>>>>>>>> bidding for NPOC for an NPOC member.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is fine if you don't agree with me. That is my candid view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Raymond Mamattah
>>>>>>>> [image: linkedin]
>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/raymond-selorm-mamattah-02637610> [image:
>>>>>>>> facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/selorm.mamattah> [image: skype]
>>>>>>>> <https://join.skype.com/invite/bWJCTPbNPkIF> [image: twitter]
>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/RMamattah>
>>>>>>>> Accra, Ghana
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 4:40 PM Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele <
>>>>>>>> muyiwacaleb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @Raymond Mamattah <mamattah.raymond at gmail.com> really *"Dead on
>>>>>>>>> Arrival"? *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You may wish to acquaint yourself with previous RIWG reports on
>>>>>>>>> the case NPOC has made requesting for balancing the NoMCoM seats.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Caleb
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:52 AM Raymond Mamattah <
>>>>>>>>> mamattah.raymond at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Raoul,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think my view is clearly indicated in my just email sent. If
>>>>>>>>>> our view of getting NPOC on the NomCom is to enable us NPOC members to get
>>>>>>>>>> more roles in the ICANN Board and other leadership roles then in my
>>>>>>>>>> opinion, it is dead on arrival.  Rather let us encourage NPOC members to
>>>>>>>>>> apply for such roles when the opportunity presents itself, not the other
>>>>>>>>>> way round.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is my opinion though, but I appreciate that you and I have
>>>>>>>>>> different standing on NPOC having a delegate to the NomCom.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Raymond Mamattah
>>>>>>>>>> [image: linkedin]
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/raymond-selorm-mamattah-02637610> [image:
>>>>>>>>>> facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/selorm.mamattah> [image:
>>>>>>>>>> skype] <https://join.skype.com/invite/bWJCTPbNPkIF> [image:
>>>>>>>>>> twitter] <https://twitter.com/RMamattah>
>>>>>>>>>> Accra, Ghana
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 3:43 PM Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The quickest fix would be to transfer one seat from CSG to the
>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm also for taking the unused GAC seat and increasing the GNSO
>>>>>>>>>>> seats by one and giving each SG two seats as well as Farzi's suggestion of
>>>>>>>>>>> having one each. These fixes happened to be in the order of my preference.
>>>>>>>>>>> We must not give into solving the GNSO rebalancing at NomCom along with the
>>>>>>>>>>> rest of ICANN. That is going to take far too long.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I do not appreciate Raymond actively speaking against NPOC
>>>>>>>>>>> having a seat at the NomCom basically every chance he gets, at both
>>>>>>>>>>> C/SG+NomComRIWG.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Raoul
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021, 17:16 Bruna Martins dos Santos, <
>>>>>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And I guess as much as I respect your opinion you should
>>>>>>>>>>>> respect ours @Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com>. NCSG has been
>>>>>>>>>>>> outnumbered for years in this process and I am pretty sure our current
>>>>>>>>>>>> leadership - c/c  @Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> and @Raphaël
>>>>>>>>>>>> Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> - will agree
>>>>>>>>>>>> with me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As Farzi pointed out, if the representation is truly deemed as
>>>>>>>>>>>> a matter re. GNSO then the most balanced idea would be for it to have one
>>>>>>>>>>>> person per SG and not the current unbalanced distribution of seats we have
>>>>>>>>>>>> right now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:04 AM farzaneh badii <
>>>>>>>>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure if they are representing the broader community they can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do so with fewer NomCom appointees too.  They have brought reasons as to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why the small businesses should have a separate seat on NomCom ... I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> buy too much into not representing their constituencies... There is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why they are so riled up about fixing this imbalance and unfairness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This imbalance in NomCom gave them (CSG) a good precedent in other groups
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to always have more representatives than NCSG and they openly think that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right way!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's very challenging to prove people 's mental state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove they are representing their constituency. But you can by looking at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the composition, determine whether it is more likely that some interest
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be more dominant than others. If numbers are not a big deal, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lets have one rep for CSG as well to work in the broader community
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest. Why four?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 9:49 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Raymond, as much as I agree this discussion is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting itself as a deadlock...what we want to achieve is balance in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nomcom representation and a more proportional distribution of seats for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-commercial groups - as stated on the two draft emails/letters you read
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the end of the day we know that we mustn't look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seat distribution as romantically as you suggest  - solely as gnso general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representation - because we are and have always outnumbered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:40 AM Raymond Mamattah <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mamattah.raymond at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was in the meeting where the NCSG leadership met with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NomCom RIWG.  I am actually part of the RIWG.  It was made clear that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members selected to the NomCom are not representing their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constituencies but acting in the broader interest of the community.  As it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stands, we have one seat for the NCUC, which obviously the person is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG member.  In this case the NCUC rep obviously represents the interest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Non Commercial entities (NCSG, NCUC and NPOC).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should not bother so much about getting more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representation in NomCom, I don't really know what we want to achieve.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I am lost.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Raymond Mamattah
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: linkedin]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/raymond-selorm-mamattah-02637610>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  [image: facebook]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/selorm.mamattah> [image: skype]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://join.skype.com/invite/bWJCTPbNPkIF> [image:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> twitter] <https://twitter.com/RMamattah>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accra, Ghana
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 4:37 AM farzaneh badii <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Raphael,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for this. Why do you think the most likely outcome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe the status quo?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And are we sending the letters? I think if they might raise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a couple of familiar issues which I address below
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - They might say they don't want a large NomCom. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine. we don't necessarily care if they reduce the number of NomCom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representatives. Say if NCSG and registrars and registries  have only one,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then CSG should only have one too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Another thing that you might want to consider is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that NomCom and whoever wants to stop remedying this imbalance insist on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NomCom members being independent from their constituency and working in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community's interest (I think there is some wording in NomCom operating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> procedure that is invoked and interpreted that way). If that is the case,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then they shouldn't worry about changing the composition and having an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal number of appointees. Every body is working for the interest of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All in all, we are all working in the community's interest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a whole by bringing our diverse perspective to the table. If this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under-representation continues, then the interest of the community is at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> risk, and frankly has been for way too long.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:10 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update, as there was what I think was a final call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the matter today, this time hosted by the RIWG itself - Rec 10 of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RIWG will stay as previously described (see this thread and previous on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That certainly means discussions at the GNSO level down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the road, and probably not very far down the road, as to how to allocate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nomcom seats for the GNSO. Still, despite not being desired by anyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most likely outcome may be status quo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a nice day,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 1:02 AM Remmy Nweke <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Bruna
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the letters are good to g
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021, 20:19 Bruna Martins dos Santos, <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hello all!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, i have added just two short sentences to the letters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think they are all good to go. On that note, I will add the two into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a letter format and keep the document open for review until tomorrow COB.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> link is here: https://docs.google.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document/d/1S6_YV-UDyn_6bjvuvZPPUwwXP7zmiNFbXT5Gmdphg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M4/edit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ps. Thanks for the reports about the call. This call was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheduled at date I had previously informed I was not able to attend even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact we had a tie but I'm glad some of us could attend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> B
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 10:54 AM Raphael
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Remmy. As you mention, the current situation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be attributable to the changes in leadership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A short summary of today's call with RIWG members and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GNSO leadership:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - The current recommendation by the RIWG is a bylaw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change to the effect that the GNSO would keep its number of seats (7) but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how it would attribute them is up to the GNSO itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - IPC reps, speaking for the CSG, want a hardcoded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of nomcom seats for the CSG and the NCSG in the bylaws. They
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appear hellbent against the current RIWG recommendation, as it would cause
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incommensurable (they might have actually used the word "infinite" - would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to look at the chat transcript) harm to the CSG interests in the long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term. Assuming from that wording, I presume they will do everything to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oppose the proposed Bylaws change/recommendation. Unsure of what that means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in practice though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CPH does not take a side, and does not want to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved. Unclear whether they would oppose a bylaws change based on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - IPC/CSG are not in favor of attributing a seat to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NPOC and rather want NCSG to have the seat(s) (I put an "s" there, but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presume they don't envision NCSG having more than one seat if the number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stays at 7...)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ISPCP fear that the current proposal will result in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the status quo, which they do not want. That technically aligns with our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position. But they support the general CSG consensus (i.e. status quo, no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amendment) although I do not know whether they support this new idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting CSG/NCSG seats in the bylaws.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, not having taken part in earlier debates on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter, I am still unclear as to why the IPC/CSG are so against the current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolution. It does open the door to them getting their representation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduced through the GNSO, as now nomcom seats could technically become
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "GNSO seats" and could (god forbid!) be dealt more evenly rather than based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on constituency count. That being said, to my mind, the current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolution/amendment proposal only kicks the ball into the GNSO court. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live to fight another day, as they say. I mean, it's not like they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely lack influence at the GNSO council...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wary of hardcoding a new setup in the bylaws. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current, maybe soon previous one, is not good, but I don't think we want a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new hardcoded setup that will still disadvantage us; giving the NCUC seat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over to the NCSG and keeping the 4 CSG seats is basically copy paste of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we have now. So if I have to choose I'd go with the current RIWG
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyhow, please discuss and maybe we'd need to rephrase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the letters slightly in order to reflect the fact that we want a change but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the one CSG is arguing for now (I mean, if we can even call that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "change")
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a nice day,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 5:39 PM farzaneh badii <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Drafted two letters (ISPCP and Registry)  in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Google doc. Please have a look and let me know if they are fine and edit as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much as you like.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We probably need a better letter to the Board.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:11 PM Bruna Martins dos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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_6bjvuvZPPUwwXP7zmiNFbXT5Gmdphg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M4/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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> *Caleb Ogundele*
>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +1-204-558-6904
>>>>>>>>> Email: muyiwacaleb at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> *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
>>>>
>>>

-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20211012/c6d757f3/attachment.htm>