I further echo Stephanie's deep concerns about the Council SubPro Small
Team Plus. The original purpose was to help the Board understand the
policies developed by the Community (in this case, with broad support)
and seek acceptance. But currently, on singulars/plurals, there is
almost a wholesale redrafting of goals and objectives, winners and
losers - and some in further backrooms with even more limited
participation.
Overall, agree with Stephanie, Julf, Pedro, Farzi, All, that Councilors
must retain the right to show that something went wrong in a PDP
process, that laws changed (like GDPR with privacy), that fundamental
considerations were missing or misevaluated in a PDP process (if it
truly were). This review will keep the pressure on policy development
processes to be thorough, balanced, and as fair as possible.
And never should this "aspirational commitment" extend to the backrooms
of the new "small teams." Council small teams, by their own agreement,
are merely advisory to the GNSO Council. What they say should always be
carefully examined by Council for the fairness, balance, wisdom, and
fullness of review (or not) of this expedited "shortcut."
Tx for sharing, Stephanie, and strong support! May all of our NCSG
speak out for objections of conscience and deep concern.
Best, Kathy
On 5/30/2024 9:10 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Dear NCSG members
>
> For some time, there has been a process going on at the GNSO Council to craft an “aspirational statement” that would encourage members not to vote against the work of Working groups. This is in keeping with our ongoing work on continuous improvement, and in my opinion may have sprung from recent surprises when work was tossed out by votes in council. Obviously, we all hate work being thrown out with the bathwater at the last minute, but I have rather consistently spoken against such a statement because I feel we are already constrained by commitments to act in good faith.
> Given the rise in small teams to deliver work product to Council, I am also very worried that this “aspirational statement” will be applied to situations where we have been under-represented in the "Working Groups”. May I add that capitalising a term is very out of fashion in scholarly publication style, and does nothing to clarify its meaning.
>
> The GNSO Council is the formal body that votes on the results of the PDPs. I do not believe we should attempt to constrain its ability to vote something down. I would remind you that the holistic review is coming, and we will need to brush up on all the work that has been done on structural improvements. I see this as a backward step, weakening the overall policy role of the GNSO. I would welcome a discussion on this list to see what the members think. It is up for voting at the next council meeting.
>
> Aspirational Statement
> The members of GNSO Council strive to be effective managers of the GNSO Policy
> Development Process (“PDP”). As managers of the PDP, the GNSO Council charters Working
> Groups in a way that accounts for both relevant expertise and stakeholder diversity within
> Working Group membership, then oversees the PDPs’ work throughout the PDP lifecycle. The
> GNSO Council recognizes that many deliberations occur within the Working Group during a
> PDP, and these deliberations lead to the consensus required for final policy recommendations.
> While individual GNSO Councilors and the groups they represent may not fully agree with the
> final policy recommendation text, GNSO Councilors strive to support recommendations that
> follow the PDP’s consensus-building processes because doing so supports the broader
> multistakeholder model. In recognition of the multistakeholder model, when a Working Group
> delivers a Final Report with consensus recommendations to the GNSO Council, the GNSO
> Council will always try to vote in favor of the policy recommendations absent truly exceptional
> circumstances.
>
>
> Stephanie Perrin
> GNSO Councillor
--
Kathy Kleiman
Past President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
|
