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

Sat Aug 21 16:55:38 CEST 2021

+1 Farnaneh,

President & CEO
Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation (AODIRF) | Africa
Geospatial Data and Internet Conference (AGDIC)
P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org  / www.afrigeocon.org
Tel: +233 20 812 8851
Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom |  Twitter: @wisdom_dk
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ICANN GNSO Council Member | ICANN transfer policy review working group
Member  | Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous
Improvement (CCOICI) | UN IGF MAG Member | IGF Support Fund Association
Executive Committee Member, World Bank Independent Consultant | AU AFIGF
Member |  Ghana OGP Advisory Committee member | GSS SDGs Advisory Committee
Member
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Specialization:
E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet
Governance,  Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber
Security, Geospatial Technologies, Open Source Technologies, Domain Name
Systems, Human Resource Planning and Development, Software Engineering,
Event Planning & Management,

On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 1:50 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Raphael.
>
> I looked over the objections from last year. I am not surprised by IPC/BC
> response, they have always had an obvious interest in being overly
> represented on NomCom while it is obviously unfair.
>
> I am surprised by ISPCP and the registry stakeholder group.
> https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Implementation+-+Outreach
>
> First of all, I believe that the Board's fear of the empowered community
> is misplaced. By design the empowered community can be initiated easily but
> to get it finished they need others support which is not that easy to
> obtain. I might be wrong. But I would like to hear more from the Board.
> Secondly, how are we supposed to fix a wrong right by not being blocked all
> the time by those who actually benefit from this unfairness?
>
>   I think we need to reach out to the registry stakeholder group and the
> ISPCP and ask them why they think it is fine that the noncommercials be
> under-represented on NomCom. Why do we need another group to study the
> imbalance (RySG recommends this). It's obvious that there is an imbalance.
> No need to ask IPC and BC. We know their rationale.
>
> Can we also write a letter to the Board? This issue can also be dealt with
> at the NCSG level because this is about the imbalance of representation
> between the commercial stakeholder group and the noncommercial stakeholder
> group on NomCom.
>
> Lets:
> - write a letter to the Board
> - talk to ISPCP and the RySG (or write to them)
>
> Best
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 8:38 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <
> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210821/de8d7f46/attachment.htm>