[NCUC-DISCUSS] GNSO "threats and opportunities" call last week - recap and food for thought

[Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix]

Dear all,

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.

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.

As a general reminder, the NCUC EC mailing list, as with all other EC
mailing lists, is publicly archived.
<https://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/2020-November/thread.html#6743>


***

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.

The IPC mentioned the difficulty of obtaining consensus and working with
colleagues who have different points of view.

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.

*Bruna highlighted the fact that NCSG managed to put together an EPDP team
composed of newcomers and veterans alike,* 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...

There was a lot of discussion about scoping of work, prioritizing of
resources, and what could/should the council and councillors do about that.

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.

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.

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.

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. *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. *

Finally, much like it will be the case for our councillors,* we all need to
become familiar with PDP 3.0, and that should probably be an integral part
of our capacity building efforts. *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.

***

And from Milton:


   - IPC mentioned the difficulty of obtaining consensus and working with
   colleagues who have different points of view.

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.

   - 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

**

A nice day to everyone!

Raphaël, on behalf of the EC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20201120/9c6a728d/attachment.html>