[NCUC-EC] This week's GNSO Leadership Call (GNSO review, IRP Standing Panel, survey on meetings)

[Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix]

Dear EC,

We had another GNSO meeting with the Council, the SGs and Cs this week. It
was officially dedicated to coordinating the Council response to the survey
conducted by Org on the meetings structure. It did go on to other topics,
however, and here are the few points of interest:


   - The GNSO must nominate a certain number of members (was not clear to
   me how many, at least one I suppose) to the Community Representatives Group
   (CRG), a group that will select the members of the IRP Standing Panel. The
   IRP Standing Panel is a pool of candidates that can be drawn upon to
   constitute an arbitration panel in the context of a given IRP. More on
   IRPs, aka Independent Review Processes, here:
   https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-07-23-en
   - With regard to the selection process above (that is, selection of GNSO
   members to go on the CRG), the Council wanted to know whether it would be
   considered appropriate to use the GNSO Standing Selection Committee. There
   was a slight push back from several Cs and Councillors, notably Tatiana, as
   well as the IPC. In a nutshell, the point of that pushback was to stress
   the necessity of "binding" (no we're not talking about law, but I can't
   find a better word just now) the Standing Selection Committee with specific
   terms of reference, for the purpose of selecting GNSO reps on the CRG.
   Indeed, the Standing Selection Committee was not constituted for nor is it
   tasked with making selections of the same level of "importance" as those
   for the CRG. This appeared to me as something quite sensible to advocate
   for (and so it did for Bruna too, although I will let her speak for herself
   on that point if she so desires!) The Council appeared willing to continue
   to collaborate with SGs/Cs on the matter, and there should be a strawman
   ToR floating around soon.
   - There was (in my view) general agreement to postpone the upcoming GNSO
   review, in view of the ATRT3 recommendations that need to be addressed
   first, logically. The Board sent a letter to the Council on that matter,
   and the Council will most likely decline to answer and let each SG/C
   provide an answer; as already discussed, NCSG's answer will be in support
   of postponing the review. We will be coordinating with Bruna to draft that
   answer. I do not think that a specific NCUC answer would be necessary nor
   appropriate at this point, but let me know if you think otherwise.
   - Finally, regarding the survey conducted by Org on the meetings, their
   format, schedule, etc., you will find attached the summary prepared for the
   consideration of the GNSO broader leadership. I am not aware, as of now, of
   any further official engagements (such as a public comment) by either the
   GNSO or Org on the topic of meetings structure and format. So this is more
   a FYI point, but still worth having a look at, just to see what the
   community leadership agrees and disagrees on. The Council will have a
   closer look at the results, but will probably not provide an "official"
   response, given that it would not be quite in its remit.


As usual, feel free to comment, discuss or correct any of the above. I will
post it on the general discussion list afterwards as I did for the previous
call summary.

Have a nice weekend,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20201127/982a4a94/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN Meeting Survey Consolidated Response.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 10165 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20201127/982a4a94/attachment.docx>