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

[Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix]

Hi Milton,

Apologies I didn't do it before: thanks a lot for your comments! It's all
very valuable insight, and we'll be sure to keep that in mind the day GNSO
review comes around.

Have a nice day,

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 9:54 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> 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/20201116/4cbb497c/attachment.html>