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

Fri Sep 10 12:11:55 EEST 2021

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_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/cf703b2b/attachment.htm>