IOC/Red Cross public comments period

[Alain Berranger]

*KK said: May I also add that I hope we get (to) develop a common NCSG
policy on this issue.*

Indeed a desirable outcome - this is my personal view as are what follows.
Before we get to a different outcome than what we currently have, we have
to turn a lot of pages on both sides of the argument, actually forget about
the mud-slinging and take a constructive open tone from now on if at all
possible. I believe than cheap shots at ICANN and the RC/IOC are not the
way to win arguments and actually make things worse. It is just divisive
and forces all to retrench on fixed positions and perpetrate "dialogue de
sourds". NCSG needs to improve its image within ICANN.

A common NSCG Policy does not mean consensus of course - it does mean that
real debate occured and all had an opportunity to speak. How realistic is
this desirable outcome and, if it is, how do we achieve it?

 If we cannot get full consensus (likely), what is the next best outcome
for the SG to seek? That's what I would like to contribute towards in San
José... although I recognize that it takes years to go up the ICANN
learning curve and that my expectation may not be realistic.

So, it all starts in San José where the RC movement is sending 3 NPOC
members from Washington and Geneva. They must feel welcome in order to
dialogue - rather than feel rotten tomatoes will be thrown at them during
the entire meeting. Even if it seems a majority of the NCSG members
expressing themselves disagree with their current position.

So we will have an opportunity to engage F2F with these NPOC members -
understand them better and explain NCUC's position to them. Will it be the
last opportunity to do so? Will it be a tigers' den? a tribunal even? or a
mature exchange where all feel comfortable to bring forth their principles,
arguments, concerns and constraints? I hope the latter.

By being there as NPOC members, the RC representatives can *"  ** ...explain
why existing protections in new gtld policy are insufficient to protect
their interests"* as the NCSG Chair suggest. I would add, it is also the
opportunity for NCUC to explain why they feel that existing protections in
the new gTLD policy are sufficient to protect their interests.

I will make the point about the principle of being "inside the NCSG tent"
is best for all. I do not know if the IOC will have representation in San
José - after all NCSG-EC has refused membership. NPOC was favorable in
welcoming IOC in its membership - we take the inclusive route but do not
intend to reopen that discussion, since my demonstration that national IOC
organizations are non-commercial was not recognized as valid (we did agree,
I recall, that Olympic Games Organization Committees - like the London one
currently - are commercial).  The point I want to make is that, with such a
position, we do not have the opportunity to engage the IOC reps F2F inside
NCSG like we have with the RC.

I can assure you that all NPOC members present in San José have been
convinced to be present because "...it is better to advocate for ICANN
policy from within..." I recognize that this has not been the case.

I repeat that the above is my personal opinion, that my intention is not to
reopen debate on membership for IOC, but to create the conditions in San
José for a real discussion and to come up with the NCSG statement we can
realistically hope for.

Cheers, Alain

On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis <
k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:

> May I also add that I hope we get develop a common NCSG policy on this
> issue.
>
> Cheers
>
> KK
>
> From: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk<mailto:
> k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>>
> Reply-To: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk<mailto:
> k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>>
> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 16:49:20 +0000
> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>"
> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>>
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] IOC/Red Cross public comments period
>
> Dear all,
>
> The public comments period concerning the special protection for the Red
> Cross and Olympic terms has now opened and can be accessed through
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ioc-rcrc-proposal-02mar12-en.htm
>
> As you know this is an issue which has raised and continues to raise
> significant issues relating to transparency, multistakeholder input , the
> role of the GAC and its relationship with the GNSO as well as issues
> relating to the expansion of existing rights to the potential detriment of
> other rights holders.
>
> May I request that everybody who has commented, and everyone who wanted to
> comment, to please do so? The timeframe is considerably strict, but at some
> point there was even a suggestion to skip it!
>
> Cheers
>
> Konstantinos
>



-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120305/103e2230/attachment-0001.html>