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

Sun Sep 19 21:47:11 EEST 2021

I mostly agree with what you have suggested Raphael. Thanks for taking the
time.

Farzaneh

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 6:52 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I have made substantial edits to the ISPCP letter in line with
> my suggestions above, keeping in mind that most of it could be used for the
> CPH with some minor edits.
>
> I would suggest that you all have a look at it quickly, so that it could
> pass by the PC before being sent to its addressees.
>
> I'll let Bruna manage the timeline on that.
>
> Have a nice day,
>
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 10:38 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I agree with the substance of the comments regarding the lack of
>> representation of non commercial interests at the nomcom; this is something
>> that needs to be corrected.
>>
>> My current preoccupation is more one of immediate process. I do not think
>> it is wise to try to further delay or stall the RIWG recommendations and
>> the bylaw changes, even though they do not in fact effectuate the change in
>> the nomcom composition or amount of members we would have wanted to.  I
>> bring this up, because that is precisely what CSG wants to achieve, not
>> because I think anyone here necessarily wants to stall that process;
>> although if you do, that's what we'd need to discuss.
>>
>> CSG failed to get what they wanted at the RIWG level, and so will most
>> likely try to use the GNSO to effectuate the stall or torpedo in a more
>> indirect way.
>>
>> Letting the process move forwards, with the bylaws stating that the GNSO
>> has seven seats it must apportion the way it wants to, implies taking our
>> "nomcom representation fight" more squarely to the GNSO, at least the GNSO
>> "level," (SG/C leadership,) if not the Council.
>>
>> The GNSO may not be the best forum, that much is true, but neither is
>> trying to push in a last minute rewrite of the RIWG recommendations,
>> especially because the rewrite *we *would want is at the opposite of the
>> rewrite CSG wants: they want the current composition to be set in stone in
>> the bylaws, plain and simple. I think they would concede a "transfer" of
>> the single NCUC seat to NCSG, but that's just my guess. That would hardly
>> get us any further, though.
>>
>> So letters, yes, but I think they would have more impact if they were to
>> be clearly situated in the current "procedural context" and would be
>> reflective of the more immediate question that is on the table, that is,
>> that of the RIWG recommendation and bylaw changes.
>>
>> I can suggest wording accordingly in the google doc over the course of
>> the week.
>>
>> have a nice day,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 3:27 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos <
>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I don't think anyone on this thread is trying to foster "in house
>>> divides among NCSG '' but truly discuss something that has been discussed
>>> over and over again by previous leadership, that is the need to rebalance
>>> the nomcom seats in order to achieve fairer selection processes.
>>>
>>> And as others have pointed out here, the idea is not purely to make sure
>>> we have good board candidates but to make sure we also have non commercial
>>> representatives participating at the selection process in order to avoid
>>> any possible bias or lack of people pointing out our views and concerns.
>>> The non-commercial community at ICANN (and GNSO) is purely made by the NCSG
>>> and its constituencies but the point is that this is not truly conveyed at
>>> the current nomcom seats composition. And if we don't get enough people
>>> that know and care about this community and have our voice in such
>>> processes we will always be outvoted - and it won't matter how outstanding
>>> our candidates are...
>>>
>>> Having said that, should we move on with the emails/letters ?
>>>
>>> best,
>>> Bruna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:03 PM Olivier Kouami <olivierkouami at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>>
>>> Advocacy Coordinator | Data Privacy Brazil Research
>>> <https://www.dataprivacybr.org/en/>
>>>
>>> Member | Coalizão Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
>>> Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN
>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg>
>>> Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus  <https://igcaucus.org/>
>>>
>>> Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins> // Skype:
>>> bruna.martinsantos
>>> bruna at dataprivacybr.org and bruna.mrtns at gmail.com
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210919/79bfa68d/attachment.htm>