[NCSG-PC] Questions to the board

[farzaneh badii]

Hi Kathy,
the Council small groups are not really "agile processes". They have to go
back to the council, they can't make decisions on their own. I think
Tomslin can answer this better.
That excerpt is from the letter you wrote with Tomslin and Manju when we
raised concerns about that group.
Anyhow I have drafted something which will send to the mailing list in a
minute and then we can discuss.

Farzaneh


On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 8:07 AM Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com>
wrote:

> Farzi,
>
> As David pointed out yesterday, most of the Board question appears to be
> directed at Small Team *on the GNSO Council.* Do you want to add anything
> about that?  Aren't we concerned about that?
>
> As for the below, I'm not sure this is right. In narrow areas of
> intractability - where the Multistakeholder process truly cannot reach a
> decision (as was the case in Closed Generics) and you have to push forward
> with some resolution, what do you do?  In this case, the GAC has a lot of
> say since they wrote the Beijing GAC Advice 2013 that helped stopped Closed
> Generics and said the fateful (but rather ambiguous words) that "exclusive
> use gTLDs" (closed generics) need to "serve a public interest."  But what
> is that public interest?  It's the GAC who needs to explain their own
> advice, and like anything else in a policy process, that's complicated and
> hard.
>
> In this case, Can't we give some credit to the Board? The last time
> (2015), they took unilateral action to ban Closed Generics, but this time,
> they are trying not to take unilateral action. If the Small Team concept
> can get the Community past a very narrowly-defined bottleneck, that may be
> a *good idea. *
>
> The other is that we - as a Community - *have criticized GAC and ALAC **for
> coming in at the very end of a policy process and providing major input. *So
> now GAC/ALAC are being asked to come in earlier so that their concerns can
> be factored into the process before the Policy Development Process Working
> Group dissolves.  Isn't it a little unfair to condemn them for doing what
> we (as a Community) have asked them to do?
>
> **Plus, I was wondering *from our Councilors *whether we should voice any
> concerns about GNSO Council Small Teams?
> *I worry here that this is a problem as it is a) a new Council method
> which seems to be operating without checks and balances and b) something
> that means NCSG has one (rather than six) people involved in a process - a
> serious imbalanced on these Council Small Teams and likely to lead to a
> real problem if these Council Small Teams grow in  number or do serious
> procedural business.  Shouldn't the Council be working as a Council (as the
> full Council has a balance and checks in its current structure)? *
>
> Best, Kathy
> On 3/12/2023 6:26 PM, farzaneh badii 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>
> 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/20230313/14348786/attachment.htm>