[NCUC-DISCUSS] Summary of GNSO leadership call of 5 Aug, on governance and WS2 updates

[Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix]

Hi Farzaneh

Regarding the RIWG, they (apparently) have not consulted since the feedback
was sent by various groups a year ago. No one knows what was done with that
feedback. Specifically it was feedback from IPC and BC, and a few others;
that feedback was negative, and the Board does not want to adopt a
resolution that would contain the bylaws change wrt to the NomCom, just to
have it become a mess at the Empowered Community step, because several Cs
feel their feedback was disregarded in its entirety.

That being said, that is my understanding based on the discussions during
the call. I don't know the rest of the story and haven't followed up with
NomCom review and the RIWG, and so cannot really say more on that. So the
issue is not that something has been decided, I think, but more that the
RIWG has been more or less silent for a year, or so.

As for WS2 it's also hard to elaborate on that more without having had a
look at what Org has in store re their "triage document" or however they
want to call it. They refused to elaborate during the GNSO leadership call,
despite the repeated demands by the ISPCP, Bruna, me, and a few others. I
honestly don't know what recommendations are the responsibility of
the community, as I said. So we'll see when said document comes out, and
then we can come back on both jurisdiction and HRs.

Once we have that document out re WS2, we can come back to Board or Org on
those two that were more important for us. As for the RIWG, I'd rather
understand where they stand and what's going on before taking action...

On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 3:18 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Raphael,
>
> Thank you.
>
> As to NomCom, I do not understand what the Board is arguing here. It's not
> clear that RIWG has reached out to the community and consulted? How did
> they come to that conclusion? The RIWG did various consultations with
> different groups and the imbalance between the representation of
> commercials and noncommercials is very clear. If the NomCom review and RIWG
> can't fix an unfairness in representation that is so apparent, why are we
> even doing such expensive reviews? Is there a resolution or Board's minutes
> about this? Perhaps we can have a meeting with Matt Shears, the appointed
> NCPH board member?
>
> As to the WS2, I see no mention of Jurisdiction. There is quite a lot for
> Org to do for the Jurisdiction issue. Where are we on that? It's true that
> OFAC is a complex and long process but it's been three years since we
> submitted a recommendation to ICANN to find ways to apply for OFAC license.
> The new gTLDs that have a direct relationship with the domain name
> registrants have confiscated and cancelled people's domain names in
> sanctioned countries. That even applies to the Public Interest Registry
> .NGO... they don't even allow people in sanctioned countries to register a
> .NGO.
>
> Another is the Human Rights which I have not followed. Is that the
> community responsibility too?
>
> I suggest we have a meeting about both issues with the GNSO Board members
> or send them a letter.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:32 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Please find below a summary of the most important points that were
>> discussed during the GNSO leadership call that took place last week re WS2
>> implementation, NomCom review, and a few other matters, on 5 Aug. Several
>> persons from Org intervened on the call.
>>
>> Have a nice day,
>>
>> ***
>>
>> -- The NomCom RIWG has not been reporting for several months, and
>> specifically it is not quite known at the community level what they did
>> with the (overall negative) feedback they got on the implementation plan
>> for the NomCom review, about a year ago.
>>
>> As a reminder, neither NCUC nor NCSG, nor NPOC submitted comments on that
>> plan. The main change being considered is changing the allocation of seats
>> within the GNSO, and not changing the total number of GNSO seats on the
>> NomCom. Hence, the GNSO would have to figure out by itself who to allocate
>> its seven seats to and on what basis.
>>
>> The Board will not move with the required Bylaw amendments regarding the
>> NomCom as long as it's not clear whether the RIWG has properly reached out
>> and consulted the community. It obviously does not want to have the
>> Empowered Community shut down the Bylaws amendments.
>>
>> -- There is a "triage document" that will come out of Org Soon(TM)
>> regarding WS2 recommendations implementation, for those recommendations
>> that are the responsibility of C/SG/SO. Org seems quite adamant that there
>> is a lot for the community to do. Still, despite several questions from
>> different parts of the GNSO, we couldn't get any specifics on this. It took
>> staff more than 15 mins just to tell us the document in question is not
>> ready yet.
>>
>> In case you missed it, here is where Org stands with the implementation of
>> its "own" WS2 recommendations, from last May
>> https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/an-update-on-work-stream-2-
>> implementation-4-3-2021-en
>>
>> Additionally, we had a discussion, probably more than a year ago,
>> regarding WS2 recommendations implementation, where it was clear that most
>> of the recommendations were for the Board and Org to implement... We will
>> have to wait and see what is in that document.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://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/20210816/9bd6849b/attachment.htm>