Hi Policy Makers of the Free World,

I am just a little surprised, I was on the call today for the Knowing the candidates, and It looked like I was on a Public Forum Call - Where the Larger Development of the Society is at stake and NCUC is responsible to discuss that - The problem with this is that the NCUC Charter derives its rights and power for even having a global public group, is through the ICANN Charter. It has a limited scope and has to be within the framework. None of the candidates except Raphael has any policy work that they have done within the Frame Work of ICANN. Diversity is great but not at the cost of the policy work we expect to deliver. Olga has some clarity to. 

And In my opinion, the Candidate statement is not sufficient for this diverse, global audience, we shall be able to convene a 1 Year agenda for a more meaningful dialogue. Only then will it display the understanding of the entire work which needs to be put in over the next year. One of the reason we don’t get the NCUC community together is perhaps the relevance is becoming a question. 

The Nominees are talking about working on the Website of NCUC as an Agenda - Any Body can Listen to the recording, Its all Social Activism not Policy Activism. I hope we are not expected to put in time and energy for NCUC’s website development - are we ?- Especially if the EC is comprising of the “Regional Representatives” then they need to know their region’s policy needs at the NCUC - & SG level in co-herence to that of the ICANN and nothing else. Differentiate between them and take it from there. The Idea is to keep up with the Non Commercial Users’ interest protected 7 achieve the greater good. Simple.

I am a little puzzled but if the Vetrans like Farzaneh, Tapanai, Robin, Amr, Stephanie, Kathy or others feel otherwise, then so be it. I am with the group.  

So I would put my vote to a proper use, I hope you the members will be too. 

Love & lots of regards,
-Vaibhav Aggarwal (Tiger)
New Delhi

Twitter : @TheVaibahvAg
Youtube : +VaibhavAggarwalIndia
Facebook : vaibhav.tiger


> On Jun 1, 2020, at 5:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On Jun 1, 2020, at 6:28 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Amr,
>> 
>> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 09:18:10PM +0000, Amr Elsadr ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>> 
>>> What I was thinking was that [Rafik] may continue between now, and
>>> when a new NCSG EC and Councilors are in place following the AGM in
>>> October. Once that is done, he could resign, and allow the new NCSG
>>> EC to fill his seat as per the NCSG Charter.
>> 
>> Ah, that's a creative idea!
> 
> Why not get creative? This is, after all, an academic discussion, anyway. :-)
> 
>> 
>>> I am also in favor of using clear and unambiguous procedures that
>>> are already in place, particularly if their use is somewhat of a
>>> novel(ish) precedent.
>> 
>> Right. So not technically bending the rules, not even quite looking
>> for loopholes but still using the rules in a new, creative way.
>> 
>> I guess that's appropriate for "Special circumstances." :-)
>> 
>> But appointing someone to the council with the explicit intent of
>> having them resign immediate after their term begins is not exactly
>> elegant, IMHO.
> 
> It’s elegant to me in the sense that it follows established procedure.
> 
>> 
>> And it would still be the EC appointing the councillor, or actually
>> doing it twice, the first time just with the extra step of getting a
>> special permission from the council. But while the second of those
>> would be business as usual, the first would be new also for NCSG and
>> how to decide that according to NCSG Charter is not entirely obvious -
>> it'd be creating new procedure just as doing a temporary appointment
>> in this situation would be.
> 
> No…, I don’t see it that way. The NCSG Charter isn’t the only document governing us as a stakeholder group. We also need to comply with, and use whatever tools are at our disposal in the GNSO Operating Procedures and the Bylaws. Not everything in the OPs and Bylaws need to be in our Charter, but our Charter cannot conflict with either, which is why I presume that ICANN Policy Staff and the ICANN Board are involved in any attempts we make to amend it.
> 
>> 
>> While the GNSO procedures are clear and unambiguous on this,
>> NCSG Charter isn’t.
> 
> Like I said…, it doesn’t explicitly need to be.
> 
>> 
>>> If you ask me for my personal insight, I believe it is unlikely that
>>> the Council would reject this course of action.
>> 
>> Yes, I expect they'd eventually approve it with an understanding smirk.
> 
> We’d have every right to smirk back at them, wouldn’t we? I’d personally find the situation kind of amusing/entertaining. :-)
> 
>> 
>>> This would be an interesting exercise
>> 
>> It would certainly have serious #popcorn value.
> 
> Popcorn goes well with amusement and entertainment, so +1. :-)
> 
>> 
>>> [it] should be a satisfactory outcome to all parties involved.
>> 
>> Given NCSG history I seriously doubt that any outcome whatsoever
>> could be satisfactory to all.
> 
> Sorry…, I meant procedurally. It’d be clear, and within defined process, so no room for anyone to complain that it isn’t fair. Clearly, not everyone would be satisfied from a substantive perspective, especially those who might benefit from an alternative scenario, such as the one taking place now.
> 
>> 
>>> It delays nothing, and creates no serious negative
>>> consequences that I can think of.
>> 
>> Somehow I don't think it'd improve NCSG's reputation and
>> credibility... but perhaps there's nothing left of those to lose.
> 
> I don’t get this. It’s perfectly reasonable to presume that at a given point in time, and depending on circumstances, our members may lack the capacity to fill all our representative roles. Circumstances in the world now are hardly ideal or at some kind of baseline. These are extraordinary times, and extraordinary measure are in place to deal with them. …, and the fact that NCSG is lacking in capacity to effectively deal with policy development is hardly news to us or anybody else who may be paying attention.
> 
>> 
>> It'd also mean that the new councillor would not be able to
>> participate in the AGM. I'd call that a negative consequence,
>> seriousness open to debate.
> 
> Assuming a F2F AGM even takes place. However, even if it did, it’d only mean that the new councilor would miss one actual GNSO Council session in which a new GNSO Chair is elected, as the new councilor would be seated at the end of the AGM, not the beginning. But yes…, Rafik would be required to stay in his current role as an NCSG rep for a short while longer than normal. Still consistent with proper process, though.
> 
> I also find the prospect of the incoming NCSG EC filling that seat to be more desirable than the outgoing EC, since the incoming EC will be the one working with whichever NCSG member ends up assuming the Councilor role…, but this is subjective on my part.
> 
>> 
>> But on the positive side, it would provide entertainment to the
>> entire Council. :-)
> 
> Indeed. :-)
> 
>> 
>>> Thanks for entertaining me on this. :-)
>> 
>> Likewise!
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> 
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen