IOC/Red Cross public comments period

Mon Mar 5 19:06:53 CET 2012

Indeed. I also find this constructive.

For all anglophones out there not familiar with Quebec expressions: 
"dialogue de sourd" means 'deaf-men dialogue' ==> "talking past each 
other".

We certainly don't want that, and Alain's contribution is a good 
contribution towards not getting that.

I will not be there, but if I would have, I would have like to (have 
beers with y'all, and) give the chance to the RC/RC people to make their 
case.

Nicolas

On 05/03/2012 11:36 AM, Michael Carson wrote:
> Well stated Alain!  We support your approach to this matter.
>
> Michael Carson
>
> YMCA of the USA
>
> NPOC Member
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Alain Berranger" <alain.berranger at GMAIL.COM>
> *To: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Sent: *Monday, March 5, 2012 9:51:05 AM
> *Subject: *Re: IOC/Red Cross public comments period
>
> /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 <mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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 <http://www.schulich.yorku.ca/>
> Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, 
> www.gkpfoundation.org <http://www.gkpfoundation.org/>
> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org 
> <http://www.chasquinet.org/>
> interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> O:+1 514 484 7824 <tel:%2B1%20514%20484%207824>; M:+1 514 704 7824 
> <tel:%2B1%20514%20704%207824>
> Skype: alain.berranger
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120305/a5d23540/attachment-0001.html>