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

[Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele]

@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_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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> *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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210910/5049f430/attachment.htm>