<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear all, <br></div><div><br></div><div>During the latest NCSG policy call, Bruna did a quick recap of the important points out of the GNSO "threats and opportunities" call that took place last week. I also wrote down a summary, which has already been posted on both NCSG and NCUC EC lists. </div><div><br></div><div>For convenience's sake, you will find my post below with only minor edits for ease of reading, alongside Milton's comments which he made on the EC list.</div><div><br></div><div>As a general reminder, the NCUC EC mailing list, as with all other EC mailing lists, <a href="https://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/2020-November/thread.html#6743" target="_blank">is publicly archived.<br></a></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>***</div><br><div>
<div>Threats: the usual suspects showed up as far as threats are concerned:
workload, EDPD eating up all resources, having a small group of
volunteers, at the SG/C level, do all the work, etc.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The IPC mentioned the difficulty of obtaining consensus and working with colleagues who have different points of view.</div><div><br></div><div>The
GNSO review was also mentioned as both a threat and an opportunity,
along the following pattern: a challenge that can be used as an
opportunity, in order to make the GNSO better... Now that doesn't mean
we all agree on what "better" means, and that's where the rubber hits
the road, I guess. IPC, BC, and ISPCP mentioned it.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Bruna
highlighted the fact that NCSG managed to put together an EPDP team
composed of newcomers and veterans alike,</b> but that we otherwise have
already reached our (NCSG) limits in terms of workload/active volunteers
ratio. In this case, what goes for NCSG goes for NCUC, as we can all
attest...</div><div><br></div><div>There was a lot of discussion about scoping of work,
prioritizing of resources, and what could/should the council and
councillors do about that.</div><div><br></div><div>There was mention of having an
internal page which would list the various skills (e.g. web development,
project management, languages) of the councillors. I think that's a
good idea, that could be replicated internally for us, at the C and
eventually at SG level too. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Julf highlighted how Org and Board
are more carefully listening to the GAC, and he related that to the
general global climate of internet governance. </div><div><br></div><div>There
seems to be a general interest by the Council to further engage with
SG/Cs, which in turn should prompt us to think about how we want/should
engage with the Council and the councillors - although that's most
likely a reflection that should be held at the SG level for us, with an
eventual distribution of labor among members and leaderships.</div><div><br></div><div>Rafik
stressed the importance, for the council and councillors, of saying no
to some projects, imposing delays, postponing, etc., in order to
better manage the workload. <b>Hence, on our side, one thing we should
think about, as a C (and then SG), is what do we want to see
prioritized. Then, when the day comes and the council takes decisions,
we can, through the SG, work with our councillors to make sure our
priorities are the ones that get prioritized. </b></div><div><br></div><div>Finally,
much like it will be the case for our councillors,<b> we all need to
become familiar with PDP 3.0, and that should probably be an integral
part of our capacity building efforts. </b>Additionally and more generally,
knowledge of procedures for a given WG (and for the GNSO, if one is
aiming at a Council position) is an important and appreciated skill -
which may explain why we have so many lawyers at ICANN. That being said,
even for non-lawyers, it is still a perfectly approachable topic. <br></div><div><br></div><div>***</div><div><br></div><div>And from Milton:</div><div><br></div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
<div>
<div><span class="gmail-im">
<ul type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal">
IPC mentioned the difficulty of obtaining consensus and working with colleagues who have different points of view. </li></ul>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this. IPC has been the holdout and consensus-blocker whenever
they don’t get their way. </span></p><span class="gmail-im">
<ul type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal">
The GNSO review was also mentioned as both a threat and an opportunity,
along the following pattern: a challenge that can be used as an
opportunity, in order to make the GNSO better... Now that doesn't mean
we all agree on what "better" means, and that's where
the rubber hits the road, I guess. IPC, BC, and ISPCP mentioned it. </li></ul>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">IPC
and BC are still smarting from the GNSO reorganization some 10 years
ago, which balanced commercial
and noncommercial user representation. Before that, they had 3
constituencies, half of the GNSO, and were usually able to intimidate a
major registry or registrar based on the threat of lawsuits, so they
almost always got their way.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Whatever “making GNSO better” means, I would assert that it does NOT mean changing the representational
balance. Any attempt to do that should be shot down immediately, or marked as off-limits.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">The
GNSO is quite well balanced now, with the contracted parties and
non-contracted parties being in
balance, and the commercial and noncommercial users being balanced.
Consensus/supermajorities are defined in a way that requires support
across both Houses and multiple stakeholder groups. I mean it literally
when I say that there is no way to improve upon
this arrangement that does not tip the scales toward one SG or another.
To repeat, we must make it clear that there will be no change in the
balance of stakeholder groups within the GNSO. We need to be firm about
this. Calm, firm and immovable – not angry
or scared. We have a good case to make: policy is supposed to
represent some kind of a consensus among the preponderance of
stakeholders and the way the GNSO balances them is good. In debating
this, be sure to let the other side lead themselves into asserting
directly that they want to tip the scales to favor their own group. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">If their complaint is that “nothing gets done” because of this balance, then you come back with this
simple response: nothing is supposed to get done when there is no broad support for it across all the SGs.
</span></p></div></div>
</div><div><br></div><div>**</div><div><br></div><div>A nice day to everyone!</div><div><br></div><div>Raphaël, on behalf of the EC<br></div>
</div></div>