[NCUC-EC] Fwd: [GNSO-SG-C-Leadership] REMINDER: Feedback on proposal to form Community Coordination Group to work on select WS2 recommendations implementation

[Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix]

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: [GNSO-SG-C-Leadership] REMINDER: Feedback on proposal to form
Community Coordination Group to work on select WS2 recommendations
implementation
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
Cc: gnso-sg-c-leadership at icann.org <gnso-sg-c-leadership at icann.org>


Dear Mary, all,

While we commend the initiative on eventually completing the implementation
of WS2, we do not favor the creation of another group/committee without a
clear purpose and form, as it appears to be currently contemplated. Indeed,
the targeted recommendations are rather heterogeneous in what their
implementation has entailed, and may still entail, with repercussions on
what the "group" may be tasked with, or not.

We are not sure if the point here is just to provide a platform for
information and best practices sharing. If that is the case, then, we
believe staff can do that without the need for a dedicated community
"group". Taking Rec 3, for example, it is "relatively" straightforward (in
the sense of doable) for staff to look at what was done with the HR bylaw
at SO/AC/SG/C level and put all of that together, for interested parties to
look at.

And in the event that it is deemed that it is the community that should
undertake such a best practices sharing work, well, then, is it the
conclusion of Org that there is the desire, by the Community, for further
coordination? Or that there is a lack of suitable vehicles for such
coordination? More coordination is always good in theory, but it can
require a lot of work, in practice, and we should consider what such work
may lead to, to the extent that certain recommendations have been discussed
and implemented already (HR bylaw again, for example).

Looking at Rec 2.3, however, it does seem like this is not just about
information sharing. Rather, a full blown process would appear to be
appropriate here. And then, what to make of either information sharing
*or *further
implementation, of Rec. 1.1, whose implementation basically entails a
commitment to a common definition of diversity? Why was this Recommendation
targeted by staff as one in need of whatever our new group would be meant
to do?

In any case, given the relatively small amount of Recommendations targeted
by this group setup proposal, we think it might be worthwhile if you could
provide us with what Org had in mind specifically for each; it might be
that a more differentiated, particularized, and detail approach, already at
an early stage, would be preferable.

Thanks,

Raphaël, on behalf of NCUC



On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 12:30 PM Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency leaders,
>
>
>
> I’m writing to ask if you can let Philippe know (if you haven’t already)
> whether your group supports the proposal to form a Community Coordination
> Group, to serve as the central contact point for collaboration,
> prioritization and information sharing on those few Work Stream 2 (WS2)
> recommendations directed at the community and that require cross-SOAC
> coordination. Specifically, those recommendations are Recommendations 1.1
> and 1.7 (related to diversity), Recommendation 2.3 (on possibly
> establishing a uniform framework for certain Empowered Community actions),
> and – for information sharing purposes – Recommendation 3 (on each SO and
> AC incorporating the Framework for Interpretation on Human Rights into its
> respective policy development and advice activities).
>
>
>
> As you may recall, ICANN org first raised the idea of forming such a group
> during a SOAC Chairs Roundtable in late May, for each community to
> consider. This coming Monday, 4 October, the topic will be on the agenda
> for another SOAC Chairs Roundtable, where we hope to have confirmation one
> way or the other from all the community groups as to the utility of and
> support for this proposal.
>
>
>
> If it helps, the group is not envisioned to be a decision-making body as
> such, since decisions will need to be taken by the individual community
> groups affected by a particular WS2 recommendation. We expect that the role
> of the Community Coordination Group will primarily be to share views across
> the community and act as the main contact point and communication vehicle
> for all the participating groups. Obviously, we also expect that all
> discussions taking place within the Community Coordination Group will be
> recorded and made publicly available.
>
>
>
> I hope this note is useful and that you will be able to convey your
> group’s view of the proposal to Philippe by Monday; especially if your
> group does NOT support the idea. Philippe is on this mailing list so feel
> free to reply to this note to everyone. Thank you!
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mary
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-SG-C-Leadership mailing list
> GNSO-SG-C-Leadership at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-sg-c-leadership
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20211003/c666f9a4/attachment.htm>