Aspirational Statements

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Stephanie,

if I understand the statement correctly, it is about the case of PDP
recommendations, it is not mentioning small groups and other neo-vehicles
created by council and board? Those small groups are different "beasts" and
I personally warned against their inflation when I was in council as they
dilute councillors responsibilities.

For the PDP case, we know that on several occasions some groups within GNSO
or pressure from outside like ACs or board where there were push to revisit
recommendations or not approve that. I do believe that raises a lot of
concern and most of the time we were not supporting such things. Final
report review by the GNSO council is mainly about checking if the process
was flawed and there are procedural matters. Since the GNSO review in 2009
it was made clear that councils don't meddle or get involved in policy
making and we got the working group model instead. Relitigating or going
into substance at council level is not something we support, even though it
can be appalling tactically sometimes.

For all concerns, I am seeing in previous responses, they are related to
what is going on in the working group or about representation. I don't
think believing about having the nuclear option to vote against at council
is really good for us (if it is there, remember it will be used by others
too). We want to keep the process in place and keep it fair because it
gives us some leverage, if not other groups have the means to influence and
game. So the focus should be how to fix issues at the working group level.
Are we properly using the mechanisms to raise concerns within the working
group during deliberation? Are we keeping chairs accountable?

Anyway, I am not really against the statement per se but not something I
will fight for. BUT I would be cautious about thinking that voting against
recommendations for some reasons is something to contemplate .

Best,

Rafik

Le ven. 31 mai 2024 à 05:30, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a écrit :

> Thanks everyone, It looks like we have rough consensus around getting rid
> of this statement.  I would argue it is redundant.  I would also point out
> to members that we should be keeping a sharp eye out for toes testing the
> water these days, as we are heading for holistic review.  Powers and voting
> rights could be taken away in the name of efficiency and greater "forward"
> motion.  For the MS system to work, it must be deliberative and
> accountable.  That often means slow and repetitive.
> Cheers Stephanie Perrin
>
> On May 30, 2024, at 11:57 AM, Johan Helsingius <
> 00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> wrote:
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20240530/44c846e7/attachment.htm>