[NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [Ncph-gnsofutures] ICANN57: GNSO Futures Meeting - Agenda/Presentation | Thursday, 3 November, 13:45 - 15:00 | Room: G.03/04
Tapani Tarvainen
ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info
Thu Nov 3 06:13:18 CET 2016
I intend to go to the group meeting today. If NCUC intends to boycott
it I can convey a message - better if NCUC EC or Chair would make one,
otherwise I'll say that my impression (based on this list discussion)
is that NCUC strongly wants to retain the house structure.
Tapani
On Nov 03 10:27, David Cake (dave at davecake.net) wrote:
> Yes, we should entirely reject the idea of removing the house structure. As Ed says, removing ourselves from the process to remove any credibility might be an appropriate strategy.
>
> I don’t really care if the CSG want to restructure themselves a bit internally to move resources from SG to C level or whatever, but they do not get to make that decision for us.
> David
>
>
> > On 3 Nov. 2016, at 10:16 am, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> >
> > It is unfortunate that the original perspectives and issues from early on in this process are not reflected in the new paper and certainly not in the second half which is - as Ed describes below - entirely and very unfortunately focussed on getting rid of the house structure.
> >
> > Attached are the early "findings" that reflect a far broader and more representative set of issues of concern to GNSO. Some of these I think we could have agreed to work on - but these are not in the new paper.
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >
> > On 03/11/2016 01:44, Edward Morris wrote:
> >> Fellow NCUC members,
> >>
> >> At last year's intercessional meeting the CSG and NPOC combined to cause creation of this GNSO Futures group. Arriving late due to flight problems, I opposed creation of a NCPH working group such as this as being completely illegitimate and inimical to the interests of the NCUC. Too late. The group was formed.
> >>
> >> This report by Tony Holmes is a completely biased farce. It is the CSG's wet dream with all proposed "solutions" to the "problem" of the GNSO House structure calling for the elimination of the House structure. That is not in the interest of the NCUC nor is further participation in this group. Any consideration of the future of the GNSO should be done alongside our partners in the Contracted Party House. The NCPH is a voting structure that has served us well, not an organisational cohort with which we should be involved in as a policy making or proposing institution.
> >>
> >> I am not a member of the GNSO Futures Group as I opposed its creation and existence. Let me state my belief that the House structure has served the NCUC and the noncommercial community well and that any switch to a constituency based structure is contrary to the interests of the NCUC and our members. The Westlake study, despite its many flaws, correctly did not support structural change in the GNSO at this time. This so called Futures group and this report is nothing more than a backwards run around the proper and legitimate GNSO review that included all components of the GNSO. Therefore:
> >>
> >> 1. I ask all NCUC members of this group to oppose publication of this report;
> >>
> >> 2. I would ask the NCUC EC and our membership to reconsider our participation in this group and, in fact, to affirmatively cease our support of and participation in this group in any way, shape and manner.
> >>
> >> I would also suggest that once consensus in this matter is reached within the NCUC we reach out to our colleagues in NPOC to discuss this matter. I do not believe empowerment of the CSG, the end result of any of the "reform" options, is in the interest of any component of the NCSG.
> >>
> >> In our Council meeting next week we will be considering approval of a drafting team (DT) report that brings the transition reforms into the GNSO. The four members of the NCUC who participated on the DT (myself, Farzi, Matt and Amr) worked diligently and successfully to port the new powers into the GNSO based upon the current house structure within Council. We did so with the full support of RrSG and RySG. They, not the CSG, are our true partners in structural issues within the GNSO. We should no longer participate in a GNSO review that excludes them. This proposed report is an example of how giving the NCPH legitimacy as anything more than a voting algorithm is not in our interest.
> >>
> >> Kind Regards,
> >>
> >> Ed Morris
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >>> From: Chantelle Doerksen < <mailto:chantelle.doerksen at icann.org>chantelle.doerksen at icann.org <mailto:chantelle.doerksen at icann.org>>
> >>> Date: 3 November 2016 at 02:54:51 GMT+5:30
> >>> To: "ncph-gnsofutures at icann.org <mailto:ncph-gnsofutures at icann.org>" <ncph-gnsofutures at icann.org <mailto:ncph-gnsofutures at icann.org>>
> >>> Subject: [Ncph-gnsofutures] ICANN57: GNSO Futures Meeting - Agenda/Presentation | Thursday, 3 November, 13:45 - 15:00 | Room: G.03/04
> >>>
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> In advance of the GNSO Futures meeting to be held during ICANN57 on Thursday afternoon, please see Tony Holmes’ note below and related attachment.
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>> Chantelle
> >>>
> >>> Meeting details:
> >>> GNSO Futures | ICANN57 Schedule Link: http://sched.co/8czi <http://sched.co/8czi>
> >>> Room: G.03/04
> >>> Time: 13:45 – 15:00 local time (UTC+5.30)
> >>> Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/hyd57-g3-c/ <https://participate.icann.org/hyd57-g3-c/>
> >>>
> >>> ___________________
> >>>
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> The attached report has no official status, but will be discussed during the GNSO Futures session to be held on Thursday 13.45 to 15.00.
> >>>
> >>> The attached report summarises the status of the discussions presented during the last GNSO Futures Conference call with the addition of a number of possible options for structural change in Section 7. None of those scenarios have been discussed; however, they are put forward as a starting point and will form the basis for discussion on agenda items 4 and 5.
> >>>
> >>> Draft Agenda – NCPH GNOS Futures Group session
> >>> Thursday, 3 November 13.45 to 15.00
> >>> 1. Introductions
> >>> 2. Adoption of agenda
> >>> 3. Update on status of discussions
> >>> 4. Interim Draft report
> >>> 5. Key questions:
> >>> - Is there support to publish a draft report within the NCPH for the record?
> >>> - If so should that report include the identification of future options and a rationale outlining each approach (Sections 7 and 8)?
> >>> - The possible expansion of those section to include other options?
> >>> - Is there a need for this group to continue its activities?
> >>> - Next steps and how best to proceed?
> >>> 6. Agreement on the way forward
> >>> 7. AoB
> >>
> >>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Ncph-gnsofutures mailing list
> >>> Ncph-gnsofutures at icann.org <mailto:Ncph-gnsofutures at icann.org>
> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-gnsofutures <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-gnsofutures>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> >> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> >> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss <http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>
> >
> > --
> > ------------
> > Matthew Shears
> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> > + 44 771 2472987
> >
> >
> > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> > <GNSO Futures Feedback (11 May 2016)_CDv6.docx>_______________________________________________
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list