Aspirational Statements

[Pedro de Perdigão Lana]

Hi Stephanie, all,

Although it is perfectly understandable why it is being proposed and the
annoyance or disappointment this kind of blockage can bring to months of
diligent work, I also disagree with going for this statement, especially
for a community so diverse as the NCSG.

Even when we have meaningful participation in the working groups, sometimes
our representatives may have different perspectives that do not reflect the
position of the overall community - and this position may be noted by
others only later when reading the outputs. Our collective views on certain
issues also be modified by new facts or new arguments after some steps
within a WG have already been completed, and having the possibility to
improve or correct a previous position is not a bad thing. The statement
looks like a laudable effort in search of efficiency, to avoid rework and
rediscussion, but at the expense of checks and balances - and guaranteeing
those seems to be a more central principle of ICANN bureaucracy.

Cordially,

*Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
Researcher
PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
Board Member @ CC Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>, ISOC BR
<https://isoc.org.br/> and IODA <https://ioda.org.br/>
This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
mistake, please reply informing it.


Em qui., 30 de mai. de 2024 às 13:01, Johan Helsingius <
00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> escreveu:

> On 30/05/2024 16:03, Ken Herman wrote:
> > Can you clarify what’s behind the need for this?
>
> Basically a couple of cases where some constituencies haven't been happy
> with the consensus result achieved in a working group, so they block it
> in Council. Unfortunately it works both ways, but I don't think trying
> to force the council to always agree with WG recommendations is the
> solution - what is needed is some sort of "provide good justification
> to disagreeing".
>
>         Julf
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20240530/2fef160a/attachment.htm>