[PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review

Sat Jul 25 04:25:07 EEST 2015

HI everyone,

 I have just been able to obtain access to the Google document. Thanks James for what has obviously been a lot of hard work.

 I regret to say that I do not support the substantive content of this document. Namely:

 ---

   We also note that a structural review of the GNSO has not been performed since the introduction of the new bicameral GNSO structure in 2009. Having been in existence for 6 years, we feel that in order for the NCPH to assess the current effectiveness of its structure a comprehensive review of the structure of the GNSO is required under the ICANN Bylaws, as per Article IV, Section 4 below;

 "These periodic reviews shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, based on feasibility as determined by the Board. Each five-year cycle will be computed from the moment of the reception by the Board of the final report of the relevant review Working Group."

 The Non-Contracted Parties House requests that a full review of the current GNSO structure is now undertaken as part of the current GNSO review and that until such structural review is complete that the GNSO review cannot be considered finalised.

 --

 I have two reasons for my objection:

 1. I do not believe it is in the interest of the noncommercial community to push for a GNSO structural review any sooner than is absolutely necessary. In fact, I'd be happy if one never took place. The current House structure ensures that noncommercial voices are heard and listened to. It forces compromise at the Council level that might not ordinarily take place and empowers us in doing so. The upcoming election for Council Chair is one such example. Two of our Council members must support the candidate for Chair or he or she will be unsuccessful. Eliminate the Houses and the next Chair of the Council would likely be someone from the IPC. We can stop that from happening if we so chose.

 I recognise that there are folks in our community who have had conversations with Board members who have told them to push for restructuring, that their goals would be met by such action. I need to tell you that my conversations with Board members and senior staff responsible for policy have led me to a very different conclusion. I submit that a General Assembly or the elimination of Stakeholder Groups are a far more likely outcome of a restructuring than an empowerment of the same. I will note that the Board members who  are telling us to restructure are either on the periphery of the Board or new to the Board. The folks I've been speaking to are a bit more senior and I perceive to be a bit more influential. I admit we really do not know who is right or who is wrong, I would just advise being cautious in accepting their advice as gospel. In the absence of any pressing need for reform, a reform  whose result is unknown,  I would suggest it is not in the interest of the NCSG to push for a structural review at this time. That we appear to be willing to do so I'm sure makes our commercial colleagues very happy. It should.

 2. Even if it were in our interest to press for a structural review, this is not the time to do it. Folks, accountability has another year or two to run minimum. How about waiting tho see what ICANN the corporation looks like first before we consent to looking at a restructuring of the GNSO? I can tell you on the basis of what has been proposed we are going to have to make some major changes in the GNSO whether we like it or not. From internal voting thresholds to perhaps assuming legal personality there are many things we'll be dealing with as a result of the transition. It is not the time to be looking at restructuring the entire SO when we are in the middle of restructuring the entire corporation.

 I also need to ask you to consider our volunteers. Who is going to carry the water for us on this major project? The likely volunteers to lead and man/woman this effort are either devoting many of their waking hours to accountability or will soon be doing so on the WHOIS directory services projects. We have the UDRP review, the launch of the next round. Who is left to focus on a restructuring that will demand hundreds of hours of volunteer time? Our commercial colleagues largely get paid to do this. We don't. Many of us are at or past our limit and this would be a major project. Enough!

 In recent days a few of us have been battling our commercial colleagues in setting up voting structures. Robin and I, in particular, have learned to perk our ears up when our CSG friends mention the number 7. They love the number seven because when things are done on the basis of 7 in the GNSO they suddenly find themselves with 42.8% of the GNSO voting strength rather than the 25% they have now. Restructuring to them is a way to get the power we are so far denying them in the accountability battles. 

 I understand some people in this SG believe restructuring will allow them to gain advantage in the silly competition between constituencies we have here. I represent both NPOC and NCUC on Council. There are people I like in both constituencies and people I don't like in both constituencies. Please understand that a restructuring at this time is not going to help either constituency. It is more likely to help the CSG. Do not take your eye off our true opponent in most policy battles. It is not NPOC, it ids not the NCUC, it is the CSG.

 In light of my previous post, where I wrote of my general opposition to compromises that reduce the diversity of opinions received during the public comment period and, of greater importance, my opposition to anything that encourages or requests a structural review of the GNSO at this time,  I oppose submitting this letter on behalf of the NCSG. If despite my opposition the decision is made to proceed I ask that the fact that this is not a full consensus position of the NCSG PC be noted in any communication regarding the letter with our Members and that my opposition be duly noted. I will also then submit a public comment stating my opposition to a structural review at this time citing: 1) the ongoing accountability effort and 2) the demands on our volunteers of other major projects. Bad ideas like this is what causes volunteer burnout. I will open this letter for signing by any NCSG member.

 I know a lot of work has gone into this and I'm sorry to have to oppose it but my conscience won't allow me to go along with it. It's a bad idea at a bad time and if we go down this road of a GNSO restructuring while we are so stretched in every other area - think lambs. slaughter.

 Best (and good night - this was my 3 day vacation from accountability and it looks like I have 2 hours to sleep before my next flight and another full day of work; lots of our volunteers are having lives this now. We can't do restructuring right now even if it were a good idea, and it isn't. It isn't fair to our engaged volunteers. The GNSO is working, not perfectly, but it is nothing that needs to be prioritised. Unless you are a member of the CSG.),

 Ed   

----------------------------------------
 From: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 7:56 PM
To: "NCSG-Policy" <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>, "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net>
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review   
   ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
Date: 2015-07-25 3:52 GMT+09:00
Subject: RE: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>

Hi all,  

Apologies for the late notice on this. Please note the current version of the letter has been distributed to the CSG and I have early indications will be supported.  

So any changes would need to be restricted to major issues only if possible. Given the diversity of the views we need it to be very neutral and nonpartisan in order to garner support from both sides of the NCPH.  

Thanks all,  

-James  

From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 7:49 PM
To: NCSG-Policy; James Gannon
Subject: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review    

hi everyone, 

there was discussion in NCPH breakfast in BA to work on joint letter about GNSO review. James volunteered and shared with NCSG and CSG a draft letter ready to  be reviewed and endorsed. 

please check it here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D2lCIUC6nSVx21CZm8m0vcENKLSV7RwbC-09iSxgZeo/edit?usp=sharing and lets endorse it and confirm with CSG counterpart. 

Best Regards, 

Rafik 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150724/78f6dd35/attachment-0001.html>