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

Thu Sep 2 18:01:56 EEST 2021

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_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/20210902/5968097c/attachment.htm>