[NCUC-EC] GNSO call on threats and opportunities last week

[Mueller, Milton L]

Excellent summary, Raphael. Thanks so much for providing it.
A few comments inline below:


  *   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.

Dr. Milton L Mueller
School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20201110/9ce1a5ae/attachment.html>