[NCUC-DISCUSS] Summary of GNSO leadership call of 5 Aug, on governance and WS2 updates
Olivier Kouami
olivierkouami at GMAIL.COM
Mon Sep 13 20:02:29 EEST 2021
Greetings everyone.
Please, I just want someone here to confirm if these equations below are
correctly disposed.
NCSG = NCUC + NPOC
NCUC = NCSG - NPOC
NPOC = NCSG - NCUC
If true, what is
NCSG - (NCUC + NPOC) =?
Thanks in advance
Warm regards
Olévié
Le sam. 11 sept. 2021 à 22:54, Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> a écrit :
> Hi Bruna
> Sorry I did not understand what you meant on respecting your opinion.
> As much as all of us may be clamouring for rebalancing its important we do
> that with sincerity of purpose and open arms to those our sister
> constituencies who literally have not been given the opportunity to
> represent NCSG and equally find a way of rebalancing in-house divides
> among NCSG.
>
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021, 18:12 farzaneh badii, <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Raymond,
>>
>> Perhaps it makes sense if I provide some background here:
>>
>> - The reason to request for remedying this imbalance is not to have a
>> certain constituency have a representative on the Board. That's not what
>> NomCom does and we are well aware of this and never even claimed such a
>> thing. We asked for an equal number of appointees, whatever the result of
>> the NomCom Board selection might be. As the letters clearly say it's the
>> matter of noncommercial voice being underrepresented. That could include
>> the technical community and others too.
>>
>> - Just for your information, we (the Noncontracted Party House, means CSG
>> as well) together appoint a Board member. At the moment it's Matt Sheares.
>>
>> - this is not only about NomCom. It sets a bad precedent and it leads to
>> power plays. Even the independent reviewers pointed out the imbalance as we
>> did many times.
>>
>> This has been a long term struggle. We raised it in 2017 with the Board
>> (Raoul did) and they said well raise it during NomCom review. If we can't
>> fix such an apparent inequality I don't know what we can fix in this ICANN
>> world.
>>
>> Best
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 12:55 PM Raymond Mamattah <
>> mamattah.raymond at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Caleb,
>>>
>>> You might want to read my email again. This is what I wrote:
>>>
>>> *1. If our view of getting NPOC on the NomCom is to enable us NPOC
>>> members to get more roles in the ICANN Board and other leadership roles
>>> then in my opinion, it is dead on arrival. *
>>>
>>> *2. Rather let us encourage NPOC members to apply for such roles when
>>> the opportunity presents itself, not the other way round. *
>>>
>>>
>>> I clearly indicated that *IF *our wish as NPOC to get a seat on NomCom
>>> is to enable more members to get Board roles and other roles then it wont
>>> work. Rather members should be encouraged to apply for those roles. Having
>>> an NPOC rep on the NomCom doesn't mean the person is going to do the
>>> bidding for NPOC for an NPOC member.
>>>
>>> It is fine if you don't agree with me. That is my candid view.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Raymond Mamattah
>>> [image: linkedin]
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/raymond-selorm-mamattah-02637610> [image:
>>> facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/selorm.mamattah> [image: skype]
>>> <https://join.skype.com/invite/bWJCTPbNPkIF> [image: twitter]
>>> <https://twitter.com/RMamattah>
>>> Accra, Ghana
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 4:40 PM Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele <
>>> muyiwacaleb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> @Raymond Mamattah <mamattah.raymond at gmail.com> really *"Dead on
>>>> Arrival"? *
>>>>
>>>> You may wish to acquaint yourself with previous RIWG reports on the
>>>> case NPOC has made requesting for balancing the NoMCoM seats.
>>>>
>>>> Caleb
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:52 AM Raymond Mamattah <
>>>> mamattah.raymond at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Raoul,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think my view is clearly indicated in my just email sent. If our
>>>>> view of getting NPOC on the NomCom is to enable us NPOC members to get more
>>>>> roles in the ICANN Board and other leadership roles then in my opinion, it
>>>>> is dead on arrival. Rather let us encourage NPOC members to apply for such
>>>>> roles when the opportunity presents itself, not the other way round.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is my opinion though, but I appreciate that you and I have
>>>>> different standing on NPOC having a delegate to the NomCom.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Raymond Mamattah
>>>>> [image: linkedin]
>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/raymond-selorm-mamattah-02637610> [image:
>>>>> facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/selorm.mamattah> [image: skype]
>>>>> <https://join.skype.com/invite/bWJCTPbNPkIF> [image: twitter]
>>>>> <https://twitter.com/RMamattah>
>>>>> Accra, Ghana
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 3:43 PM Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The quickest fix would be to transfer one seat from CSG to the NCSG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm also for taking the unused GAC seat and increasing the GNSO seats
>>>>>> by one and giving each SG two seats as well as Farzi's suggestion of having
>>>>>> one each. These fixes happened to be in the order of my preference. We must
>>>>>> not give into solving the GNSO rebalancing at NomCom along with the rest of
>>>>>> ICANN. That is going to take far too long.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not appreciate Raymond actively speaking against NPOC having a
>>>>>> seat at the NomCom basically every chance he gets, at both C/SG+NomComRIWG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Raoul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021, 17:16 Bruna Martins dos Santos, <
>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I guess as much as I respect your opinion you should respect
>>>>>>> ours @Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com>. NCSG has been outnumbered for
>>>>>>> years in this process and I am pretty sure our current leadership - c/c @Raoul
>>>>>>> Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> and @Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
>>>>>>> <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> - will agree with me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As Farzi pointed out, if the representation is truly deemed as a
>>>>>>> matter re. GNSO then the most balanced idea would be for it to have one
>>>>>>> person per SG and not the current unbalanced distribution of seats we have
>>>>>>> right now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:04 AM farzaneh badii <
>>>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure if they are representing the broader community they can do so
>>>>>>>> with fewer NomCom appointees too. They have brought reasons as to why the
>>>>>>>> small businesses should have a separate seat on NomCom ... I don't buy too
>>>>>>>> much into not representing their constituencies... There is a reason why
>>>>>>>> they are so riled up about fixing this imbalance and unfairness. This
>>>>>>>> imbalance in NomCom gave them (CSG) a good precedent in other groups to
>>>>>>>> always have more representatives than NCSG and they openly think that is
>>>>>>>> the right way!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's very challenging to prove people 's mental state and prove
>>>>>>>> they are representing their constituency. But you can by looking at the
>>>>>>>> composition, determine whether it is more likely that some interest would
>>>>>>>> be more dominant than others. If numbers are not a big deal, then lets have
>>>>>>>> one rep for CSG as well to work in the broader community interest. Why
>>>>>>>> four?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 9:49 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos <
>>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, Raymond, as much as I agree this discussion is presenting
>>>>>>>>> itself as a deadlock...what we want to achieve is balance in the nomcom
>>>>>>>>> representation and a more proportional distribution of seats for the
>>>>>>>>> non-commercial groups - as stated on the two draft emails/letters you read
>>>>>>>>> on this thread.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the end of the day we know that we mustn't look at the seat
>>>>>>>>> distribution as romantically as you suggest - solely as gnso general
>>>>>>>>> representation - because we are and have always outnumbered.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:40 AM Raymond Mamattah <
>>>>>>>>> mamattah.raymond at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was in the meeting where the NCSG leadership met with the
>>>>>>>>>> NomCom RIWG. I am actually part of the RIWG. It was made clear that
>>>>>>>>>> members selected to the NomCom are not representing their
>>>>>>>>>> constituencies but acting in the broader interest of the community. As it
>>>>>>>>>> stands, we have one seat for the NCUC, which obviously the person is an
>>>>>>>>>> NCSG member. In this case the NCUC rep obviously represents the interest
>>>>>>>>>> of the Non Commercial entities (NCSG, NCUC and NPOC).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think we should not bother so much about getting more
>>>>>>>>>> representation in NomCom, I don't really know what we want to achieve.
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I am lost.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> Raymond Mamattah
>>>>>>>>>> [image: linkedin]
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/raymond-selorm-mamattah-02637610> [image:
>>>>>>>>>> facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/selorm.mamattah> [image:
>>>>>>>>>> skype] <https://join.skype.com/invite/bWJCTPbNPkIF> [image:
>>>>>>>>>> twitter] <https://twitter.com/RMamattah>
>>>>>>>>>> Accra, Ghana
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 4:37 AM farzaneh badii <
>>>>>>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Raphael,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for this. Why do you think the most likely outcome maybe
>>>>>>>>>>> the status quo?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And are we sending the letters? I think if they might raise a
>>>>>>>>>>> couple of familiar issues which I address below
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - They might say they don't want a large NomCom. That is fine.
>>>>>>>>>>> we don't necessarily care if they reduce the number of NomCom
>>>>>>>>>>> representatives. Say if NCSG and registrars and registries have only one,
>>>>>>>>>>> then CSG should only have one too.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Another thing that you might want to consider is that NomCom
>>>>>>>>>>> and whoever wants to stop remedying this imbalance insist on NomCom members
>>>>>>>>>>> being independent from their constituency and working in the community's
>>>>>>>>>>> interest (I think there is some wording in NomCom operating procedure that
>>>>>>>>>>> is invoked and interpreted that way). If that is the case, then they
>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't worry about changing the composition and having an equal number
>>>>>>>>>>> of appointees. Every body is working for the interest of the community.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All in all, we are all working in the community's interest as a
>>>>>>>>>>> whole by bringing our diverse perspective to the table. If this
>>>>>>>>>>> under-representation continues, then the interest of the community is at
>>>>>>>>>>> risk, and frankly has been for way too long.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:10 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
>>>>>>>>>>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Quick update, as there was what I think was a final call on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> matter today, this time hosted by the RIWG itself - Rec 10 of the RIWG will
>>>>>>>>>>>> stay as previously described (see this thread and previous on the matter)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That certainly means discussions at the GNSO level down the
>>>>>>>>>>>> road, and probably not very far down the road, as to how to allocate the
>>>>>>>>>>>> nomcom seats for the GNSO. Still, despite not being desired by anyone, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> most likely outcome may be status quo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a nice day,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 1:02 AM Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Bruna
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the letters are good to g
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021, 20:19 Bruna Martins dos Santos, <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hello all!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, i have added just two short sentences to the letters but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think they are all good to go. On that note, I will add the two into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letter format and keep the document open for review until tomorrow COB.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> link is here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S6_YV-UDyn_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/20210913/e1eb41bc/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list