IOC/Red Cross public comments period

[Avri Doria]

On 5 Mar 2012, at 10:51, Alain Berranger wrote:

> 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?

Perhaps by continuing to debate?

> 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. 

Rotten tomatoes?  I have not seen any rotten tomatoes.
I have seen strong opinions expressed with exuberance.

Perhaps ICANN should be a gray place without exuberant discussion.  
I prefer colorful exuberance.
But that was probably obvious.

I think the majority of NCUC are open to good active conversations with whomever shows up.'
We do seem to be a loquacious bunch who love to discuss. and discuss.  and discuss ...

> 
> 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. 

Tigers? I haven't seen any tigers.

When exchanges start out with victimized accusations of tiger dens and rotten tomatoes, it is tough to know when to start the mature exchange.
Personally in all my years of arguing with NCUC members (even before I was one), and we have had some doozies (far worse than anything people have ever gone to the ombudsman about), none of us have ever been bloodied or left the room covered in tomato guck.


> 
> 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.

Um.
But.
I mean,

All of the NCSG meetings are open.  The ICANN meeting is open.  I think the NCUC meeting is open and I expect the NPOC meeting is open.  

They can come.  They can give their position face 2 face and/or beer 2 beer.  They don't need to be NCSG members to discuss things with NCSG members.  I talk to people in other SGs ALL the time, as do most other NCUC members. 

> 
> 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.

That is good.  And it is a step forward.
I look forward to many fine discussions.
And some nice glasses of wine.

avri