Aspirational Statements

[Yao Amevi A. Sossou]

Dear NCSG Members,

The ongoing discussion about the proposed aspirational statement for the
GNSO Council has raised significant concerns within our community. I
appreciate the thoughtful insights shared by everyone. As we consider the
implications of this statement, it is crucial to state our collective
position clearly and propose constructive alternatives.

Many of us, including Stephanie Perrin, have pointed out that the
aspirational statement seems redundant since we are already bound by
commitments to act in good faith. I assume that the statement's primary
intention is to encourage members not to vote against the work of Working
Groups, fostering continuity and efficiency in the policy development
process (PDP). However, there are legitimate worries that such a statement
might constrain the Council’s ability to critically evaluate and erroneous
recommendations. This could be particularly problematic in cases where our
voices are underrepresented or ignored during the WG deliberations.

A core issue is ensuring adequate representation within WGs. If the
aspirational statement is applied indiscriminately, it might force the
Council to support recommendations without sufficiently addressing
underrepresentation or overlooked concerns. This undermines the essential
checks and balances that the Council provides, ensuring thorough and
balanced policy development. Preserving the Council’s right to object to WG
recommendations, especially under extraordinary circumstances where
procedural mistakes or error are evident or public comments have been
ignored, is vital for maintaining the integrity of our multistakeholder
model.

To address these concerns, we should focus on improving the WG processes
rather than adopting the aspirational statement. Enhancing participation
from diverse stakeholders within WGs from the outset and holding WG chairs
accountable for inclusive discussions can mitigate the need for extensive
re-evaluation of recommendations at the Council level. Additionally,
stronger consultation within constituencies can ensure broader agreement by
the time recommendations reach the Council, reducing the likelihood of
significant objections.

Given the overwhelming consensus within NCSG, I suggest we formally oppose
the aspirational statement. Our response should emphasize that the
statement is redundant and could potentially limit the Council’s necessary
oversight role. Instead, we should propose specific improvements to the
existing WG processes to enhance efficiency without compromising procedural
fairness and representation.

As we prepare for the upcoming Council meeting, it is crucial to present a
united front. We must actively participate in the discussions, clearly
articulating our reasons for opposing the statement and advocating for
procedural improvements. Furthermore, we should remain vigilant during the
holistic review and other related initiatives to ensure that any changes in
powers or voting rights do not undermine the deliberative and accountable
nature of the multistakeholder model.

Best regards,
.............................................................
Yao Amevi A. Sossou

Researcher |IxD| IT Support | Project manager| Human centered
Entrepreneurship| SDG Advocate | Internet Governance | Youth IGF

Email: soyames at gmail.com

Twitter: *https://twitter.com/_amevY2 <https://twitter.com/_amevY2>*

LinkedIn: Yao Amevi A. sossou | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/ameviy/>

.............................................................

To promote respect for the environment, thank you to only print this email
only when necessary


On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 3:14 PM Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Dear NCSG members
>
> For some time, there has been a process going on at the GNSO Council to
> craft an “aspirational statement” that would encourage members not to vote
> against the work of Working groups.  This is in keeping with our ongoing
> work on continuous improvement, and in my opinion may have sprung from
> recent surprises when work was tossed out by votes in council.  Obviously,
> we all hate work being thrown out with the bathwater at the last minute,
> but I have rather consistently spoken against such a statement because I
> feel we are already constrained by commitments to act in good faith.
> Given the rise in small teams to deliver work product to Council, I am
> also very worried that this “aspirational statement” will be applied to
> situations where we have been under-represented in the "Working Groups”.
> May I add that capitalising a term is very out of fashion in scholarly
> publication style, and does nothing to clarify its meaning.
>
> The GNSO Council is the formal body that votes on the results of the
> PDPs.  I do not believe we should attempt to constrain its ability to vote
> something down.  I would remind you that the holistic review is coming, and
> we will need to brush up on all the work that has been done on structural
> improvements.  I see this as a backward step, weakening the overall policy
> role of the GNSO.  I would welcome a discussion on this list to see what
> the members think.  It is up for voting at the next council meeting.
>
> Aspirational Statement
> The members of GNSO Council strive to be effective managers of the GNSO
> Policy
> Development Process (“PDP”). As managers of the PDP, the GNSO Council
> charters Working
> Groups in a way that accounts for both relevant expertise and stakeholder
> diversity within
> Working Group membership, then oversees the PDPs’ work throughout the PDP
> lifecycle. The
> GNSO Council recognizes that many deliberations occur within the Working
> Group during a
> PDP, and these deliberations lead to the consensus required for final
> policy recommendations.
> While individual GNSO Councilors and the groups they represent may not
> fully agree with the
> final policy recommendation text, GNSO Councilors strive to support
> recommendations that
> follow the PDP’s consensus-building processes because doing so supports
> the broader
> multistakeholder model. In recognition of the multistakeholder model, when
> a Working Group
> delivers a Final Report with consensus recommendations to the GNSO
> Council, the GNSO
> Council will always try to vote in favor of the policy recommendations
> absent truly exceptional
> circumstances.
>
>
> Stephanie Perrin
> GNSO Councillor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20240601/cfc3bcdc/attachment.htm>