<div dir="ltr">Dear Raphael,<div>Thank you for sharing the recap, and I believe the NCUC list will also find it very useful (even in this format).</div><div><br></div><div>I support the idea of having an internal page listing various available skillsets for both councilors and internally as well.</div><div>The idea of forming smaller groups to take on a little chunk of works for the constituency will be great as well.</div><div>Is it possible to have a PDP 3.0 capacity building session with the community?</div><div><br></div><div>I also believed NCSG or NCUC should build a pool of talents to support our work.</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you once again,</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Benjamin </div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:54 PM Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_1484924732832256871WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Excellent summary, Raphael. Thanks so much for providing it.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">A few comments inline below:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">
IPC mentioned the difficulty of obtaining consensus and working with colleagues who have different points of view. <u></u><u></u></li></ul>
<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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<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. <u></u><u></u></li></ul>
<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.
<u></u><u></u></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.
<u></u><u></u></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. <u></u><u></u></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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Dr. Milton L Mueller<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">School of Public Policy
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Georgia Institute of Technology<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NCUC-EC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCUC-EC@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank">NCUC-EC@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec</a><br>
</blockquote></div>