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

Bruna Martins dos Santos bruna.mrtns at GMAIL.COM
Thu Sep 2 14:18:36 EEST 2021 

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_6bjvuvZPPUwwXP7zmiNFbXT5GmdphgM4/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_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
>>>
>>

-- 

*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/20210902/224d2096/attachment.htm>

More information about the Ncsg-discuss mailing list