[NCUC-DISCUSS] EC report on NCPH Intersessional + links

Sun Mar 12 09:03:53 CET 2017

Hi Renata

Thanks much to the EC for this work, it’s really nice to get a meeting report.

Given the long-running debate here and elsewhere about the PICs, and the fact that we’re asking the Board about them, I’d be curious to hear a little about how our attendees addressed the .FEEDBACK PICDRP…

Thanks,

Bill

> On Mar 11, 2017, at 15:46, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all
> 
> Please see below the EC report on NCPH Intersessional with references links.
> Most of the content has already been addressed on the list but this
> report remains as reference so you are updated on EC activities.
> 
> ----
> 
> NCPH Intersessional 2017
> 
> Dear members,
> 
> Your Executive committee representatives would like to update you on
> the work done at NCPH (Non-Contracted Parties House) Intersessional
> 2017. You are invited to share this report and are encouraged to reach
> out  to your NCUC EC regional representative if you have any questions
> and concerns.
> 
> he Intersessional event of NCPH - Non-Contracted Party House (NCPH)
> was held by GNSO (Generic Names Supporting Organization) during 14 to
> 16 Feb 2017 in Reykjavik. This event gathered together two stakeholder
> groups of NPCH - Commercial (CSG) and NonCommercial (NCSG) Both NCSG
> and NCUC as a part of it presented sessions on several themes which
> are important to the NCPH, where we belong in ICANN.
> This was  also an opportunity to interact with our counterpart on NCPH, the
> CSG - Commercial Stakeholder Group and its constituencies. The event
> had two types of sessions. The joint sessions, where both stakeholder
> groups discussed some important issues like updates on their work,
> compliance, intellectual property issues, the accountability of NCPH,
> the future of GNSO and others. Other sessions were held separately and
> simultaneously for particular stakeholder groups and constituencies:
> during those sessions NCUC and NCSG could get together and discuss
> their work and their future strategies.
> You can find all transcripts and recordings here
> 
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63144494
> 
> 
> A few useful links as a follow-up to the debates that happened at the
> Intersessional:
> 
> 
> * NCPH Board Seat Selection Process
> 
> Until 3 May 2017 the NCPH should choose a candidate for the board
> seat. Up to now candidates are Markus Kummer - Switzerland (running up
> for re-election) and Matthew Shears - UK.
> 
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncph-intersessional2017/2017-February/000093.html
> 
> The procedures for this election are up for comment
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit
> 
> 
> * The .FEEDBACK issue
> 
> This helps understand an issue going on with misuse with this newGTLD
> 
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncph-intersessional2017/2017-February/000078.html
> 
> 
> * Policymaking and the relationship with the GAC
> 
> There is a follow-up to this session with resources here
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncph-intersessional2017/2017-February/000082.html
> 
> 
> * Contractual Compliance
> 
> Jamie Hedlund posted on ICANN blog about the discussion on Intersessional
> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/six-weeks-in-contractual-compliance-and-consumer-safeguards
> 
> 
> * Travel ban and its impact on the Puerto Rico meeting
> The travel ban approved by pres. Trump in the US (now suspended by
> court orders) has disrupted the participation of community members in
> several meetings.
> ICANN issued a note on that matter and is monitoring the issue.
> During an intersessional call, the chair also brought up a talking
> point with the CEO to ensure that diversity continues to be a reality
> in the community, including the participation of developing countries.
> You can see the ICANN note here
> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/travel-to-and-from-the-united-states
> You can also see the chair's summary of meeting with CEO here
> http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2017-February/020239.html
> The Puerto Rico meeting, 18 months away is the only to be conducted
> within US borders.
> Up to now, there is no proposal to move this meeting.
> 
> 
> We would also like to offer you a more detailed report on the session,
> which might be of your particular interest. The topic of the session
> was suggested by the NCUC members. and the discussions concerns the
> future role of GNSO:
> 
> 
> Maintaining the GNSO's traditional policy-making leadership position at ICANN
> Moderated by: Tony Holmes (ISPCPC); NCSG – Kathy Kleiman (NCUC)
> 
> Report written by: Ines Hfaiedh/ NCUC EC Africa
> 
> 
> This session discussed the different challenges facing the GNSO's
> traditional policy-making leadership position at ICANN. The demands of
> the policy-making for GTLDs have increased and in terms of
> representing a very broad diversity.
> It started with raising awareness to the fact that challenging the
> GNSO’s leadership in policy debates is in fact a challenging of the
> whole multi-stakeholder model. Discussions went on to remind us of the
> sad but true fact that by the end of the day, governments are the ones
> that agree or not to implement policies. Besides, there was an
> allusion to the At-Large Public comment on expanding their role to
> actual policy-making and not only advising.
> The sub-question to this discussion raised by Kathy Kleiman was: is
> our role in Policy-making diluting?
> First, there was an intro on the GNSO vis-à-vis the GAC and the
> mechanisms through which consensus must be found between the GAC and
> the councilors and the role of PDPs.
> Second, mapping up the big picture of competitors to the GNSO
> policy-making leadership, Kathy Kleiman pointed to the At-Large public
> comment on the review of community where they seem to be looking
> forward to a greater role in the policy-making.
> David Cake, NCUC EC, urged to use GNSO mechanisms to revisit what we
> need to revisit and to put more effort in the way we interact with the
> GAC. We need to be more flexible while being clearer why the GNSO has
> this role.
> Greg Shatan, IPC, highlighted the GNSO “raison d’être”; the idea that
> the job of the GNSO  council is to manage THE POLICY development
> process of the GTLD policy . GNSO council has primacy on the THE
> POLICY development process of the GTLD policy. This is for the entire
> community to agree. That is what we should guard carefully.
> Renata Aquino Ribeiro, NCUC EC, people who are new to ICANN and
> fellows ask to learn about the GAC because it is influencing ICANN.
> There is an increase in dialogue but also an increase in perception of
> influence.
> To this comment, Steve DelBianco answered that the GAC is maturing and
> finding its place and raising its voice. There are new mechanisms in
> the bylaws to « CONTAIN » the power of the GAC but when it comes to
> the GTLD space, GNSO owns it and others can participate in it.
> Rinalia Abdul Rahim, ICANN Board member, highlighted that it’s not a
> pleasure to receive letters advice from different ICANN community
> opposing a Policy or aspects of a Policy. Abdul Rahim wondered if the
> problem was within the Policy-development process in itself and added
> that in order to be “the locus and focus of policy-making”, the GNSO
> should be more flexible and engage more stakeholders in the policy
> discussion especially at the Policy forums.
> It is important to note that now there is a liaison between the GNSO
> and the GAC. The basic step now is getting them to engage. The
> discussion then moved to ways to sensitize the GAC to PDP processes
> and developing practical approaches to hearing out the concerns.
> Suggestions ranged from giving a sort of agenda to setting a mechanism
> of notifications while informing that there is a process and everyone
> has to fit in the process.
> Avri Doria, on the other hand, argued that “the Board is the problem”
> as it has created a situation of organization against organization.
> The Board has to be the one that actually solves the problem by
> looking at the content and the recommendations and go from there.
> 
> * See also: Documents produced by ICANN Staff
> 
> 
> After the meeting, ICANN staff also produced the following documents:
> 
> 
> ICANN Response to Questions from ICANN Compliance Session
> 
> https://community.icann.org/x/KILDAw
> 
> 
> ICANN Staff meeting report that incorporates session notes, action
> items and next steps from NCPH Intersessional meeting
> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/Intersessional+2017+-+Documents
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170312/419bab13/attachment-0002.html>