[PC-NCSG] NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi Bill,

I wasn?t at the NCPH intercessional last January or the CSG/NCSG breakfast meeting. Had I been at the NCPH meeting in DC last January, I might have supported a structural review at the time. However, like I said, with what?s going on with Westlake?s recommendations, I do not think this is the right time to support a structural review. My understanding is that the board SIC will need to act one way or the other on the recommendations of this report. My concern is that if we (NCSG and CSG) submit a letter at this time saying that a structural review should be conducted, the Westlake recommendations may play an important factor in scoping this initiative. I would feel more comfortable if we first discredit the Westlake report and recommendations, then start a review of the GNSO structure using a clean slate.

What added to my concerns were the three comments submitted by the BRG, the INTA and NPOC (which I provided links to in my previous email). More recently, Steve DelBianco submitted the BC comment, which only reinforces my concerns regarding NCSG and CSG presenting any kind of united front on this matter. (Please check: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/pdfVbs0zXvfTm.pdf).

Bill?, when you say:

On Jul 26, 2015, at 6:03 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> So James drafts the letter, and now there?s opposition we?d not heard about before on grounds that are a bit disconnected from the concerns that animated all the conversations prior.  Meanwhile the folks party to the prior conversations have not been heard from.  Late July is not terribly good timing?

This is precisely why I believe this discussion should not be limited to the PC list. I have already expressed my disconnect from the perceived problems with the 2-house structure. I have no idea what those are, and would like someone to explain them to me. People keep saying ?they? exist, but never say what ?they? are. Additionally, I am aware that there are those folks who were party to the prior conversations and have not been heard from now. We should hear from them before making a decision. I can, personally, only have an opinion based on the information I have access to.

Anyway?, just to reaffirm my position on this; I am completely in favour of revising whether or not constituencies continue to serve any constructive purpose in the GNSO. I would argue that they do not. I?m more than certain that there are many others in the GNSO who disagree with me. I just don?t believe this is the right time to have this conversation. On the other hand, I don?t have any grievances with the way the 2-house structure is set up, and am pretty clueless why others do.

Thanks.

Amr