[NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Questions to the board
Johan Helsingius
julf at julf.com
Mon Mar 13 02:06:50 EET 2023
Thanks Bruna, I agree with most of your points. The questions are
already in priority order, and the assumption is that there won't
be time for very many of them. It was expressed that we'd rather
have too many questions than cull ones, as the written questions
still send a message to the board.
Some questions are there only because NPOC felt very strongly about
them.
Julf
On 12/03/2023 18:48, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote:
> Once again, thanks Julf for drafting the questions and sending them to
> us. I have a few comments/suggestions below:
>
> 1. Amount of questions: Too many questions so it might be worth placing
> them in a priority order. Normally we would submit 3-4 questions tops,
> so we could have some level of a debate with the board on each of them.
> 2. GDC: The question about the GDC I would personally exclude unless you
> want to rehash it. ICANN is not part of any of the UN structures so I’d
> either change towards a simple question about their engagement in the
> GDC process, or if they have any comments on how it could possibly
> affect MS participation or broader IG processes. Bc the way the question
> is formulated could result in a blunt answer like: “we have no
> obligation to align it’s an UN process”.
> 3. Repetitive questions: We have been asking the board both about
> volunteer burnout and the NPOC seat at nomcom for like the last 3
> meetings at least, and I'm afraid that by doing so it might make us look
> a bit subjectless. Therefore, id consider not asking the one about
> burnout and use the NPOC Nomcom seat one more as a statement.
> 4. NPOC @ Nomcom: We know that this is not necessarily an issue the
> board can solve + they have sympathy for our request. So my suggestion,
> again, would be to deliver this question as a political statement that
> doesn't necessarily wait for a Board answer. And by doing that, we
> should avoid naming constituencies or groups and opt for a more
> high-level comment that points out that the lack of
> representation/stakeholder diversity in the majority of the NomCom
> processes is also due to the fact that our stakeholder is not fully
> present there.
> 5. Travel: I'd leave the question about travel out as well. Bc a. It’s
> possible to book train travel through FCM if I’m not mistaken and b. A
> good network or trains is pretty much an European privilege, so I’m
> reading the second part of the question (about land travelling) a bit
> disconnected with the reality of a global community with lots of people
> from countries where this is not possible.
>
> Best,
> Bruna
>
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 7:27 PM farzaneh badii via NCSG-EC
> <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec>
>
>
>
> --
> */Bruna Martins dos Santos
> /*
>
> German Chancellor Fellow 21' (Bundeskanzler-Stipendiatin) | Alexander
> von Humboldt Foundation <https://www.humboldt-foundation.de/>
>
> Member | Coalizão Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
> Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus <https://igcaucus.org/>
>
> Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins> // Skype:
> bruna.martinsantos
> Email: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list