[NCSG-PC] Questions to the board

[farzaneh badii]

Here is the relevant part of our letter:

“3. Such ‘facilitated dialogue’ is giving GAC a more pronounced role in
policy making than its advisory role as mandated in ICANN Bylaw.
GAC is welcome to engage in the policy development process in the early
stage as any other SO/ACs in order to ensure a policy outcome that takes
the multistakeholder perspective into account.
That said, it is important and critical that we honour the distinct
responsibilities and roles between the GNSO as the policy-making body and
GAC as an advisory committee.
And for that, it is critical that we make sure the multistakeholder model
is fair and balanced. Current practice of ACs participating in consensus
vote in PDPs while still enjoying the privilege of having their advice as
carrying some kind of different weight than the policy recommendations is
creating an asymmetrical power relation among AC and SO. This uneven
balance can negatively impact the legitimacy and accountability of ICANN’s
multistakeholder model.
In light of the above mentioned, it remains unclear how a facilitated
dialogue as proposed can create any other outcome than what the SubPro
couldn’t have achieved with 5 years of hard work. On that note, the
Noncommercial Stakeholder Group would also like to note that this
‘facilitated dialogue’ can create a dangerous precedent of re-opening
issues. The community should learn to accept the product of difficult
compromise. And we should all learn to draw the line of when policy
recommendations are made and resolved by Council/Board, they are regarded
and respected as Consensus Policy.
The NCSG understands that the issue of Closed Generics remains without an
explicit GNSO recommendation as reported in the SubPro Final Report.
However, rather than inventing processes and setting a dangerous precedent,
we propose using a more balanced multi stakeholder approach in seeking
input on this topic. Therefore, we urge the GNSO to reconsider its support
to the proposed dialogue.
3

 Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
Representing the interests and concerns of non-commercial Internet users in
domain name policy
Therefore, instead of pursuing a ‘closed dialogue’ with the GAC where the
scope and interlocutors are dictated by the ICANN Board, the NCSG
encourages the GNSO to seek community comments and perspectives on how to
proceed with Closed Generics throughout the already established
participatory mechanisms used by the ICANN community (i.e. public comments
and PDPs). We trust that a broader conversation can serve as a good
experience to collect the main issues and concerns around this topic, as
well as guidance to the GNSO Council members responsible for leading this
debate internally - should it occur despite our deep concerns for the ICANN
Multistakeholder model and precedent. How else will this small team - some
with very long-held personal views on the subject - be bound to a
discussion on behalf of the entire GNSO Community?”

What was the board response? We should draft our response considering that
too.

On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:17 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> If Tomslin has the time to do it I think he is better placed because he
> was also involved with our objection to creating the closed generic group.
>
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 5:14 PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/03/2023 17:09, farzaneh badii wrote:
>> > I will do the response wording to the board and send it to the mailing
>> > list. Ill do that tonight hopefully.
>>
>> Great! Thanks!!
>>
>>         Julf
>>
>> --
> Farzaneh
>
-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230312/e0623a0a/attachment.htm>