IOC/Red Cross public comments period

[David Cake]

Alain, my anger is mostly at the process here, not the IOC and IRC themselves (though, of course, the IOC and IRC must bear some responsibility for initiating a very flawed process, and IMO not engaging particularly helpfully with it). But the GAC, and those within the GNSO who want to uncritically follow GAC recommendations with unseemly haste, are the main targets.

I think you will find that NCUC members are genuinely interested in policy debate. I've taken a line that is much more positive about Red Cross claims than most of my NCUC colleagues, based purely on my interpretation of the Geneva Convention wording, and I've received no negative comments about it at all. Discussions with (I believe an NPOC member) concerning the policy justification for the IOC were very cordial and friendly in Dakar. NCUC is very open to evidence based policy debate, and quite happy to entertain differences of opinion regarding it both internally and externally, on this or other subjects.

What NCUC doesn't like and doesn't welcome is manipulation and subversion of process, pushing to outcomes based on political expediency not evidence, and other attempts to bypass real debate and proper process to achieve a short term political goal. This, unfortunately, definitely seems to be occurring with the IOC/RC issue, and has many of us very angry. 

For ICANN to work, it needs people willing to engage in debate and not push it aside as an inconvenience. In short, if the IOC and RC come to NCUC wanting to discuss the most appropriate proposals based on evidence, they'll be welcomed. If the IOC and RC come to NCUC demanding support for the debate process to be sidelined, they will get a far worse reception. 

On 05/03/2012, at 11:51 PM, Alain Berranger wrote:

> 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.

	I think the poor image of the IOC in particular extends well beyond ICANN. I don't think the poor image the IOC enjoys generally has much to do with NCSG, and blaming NCSG for expressing what are fairly common opinions isn't helpful either.
	But I agree we a constructive tone if there is to be an effective policy discussion. The real issue is whether there is to be any effective possibility for policy discussion at all - the leadership of the working group seem to be uninterested in discussing the merits of the IOC and RC claims. 

> 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?

	In my opinion, if NPOC wants to become an effective contributor to ICANN policy debate, it should concentrate on ICANN policy debate, rather than spending a great deal of effort on attempting to establish procedural standards that run counter to ICANN norms. 

> 
>  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.

	If you are going to be there in SJ, I'll look forward to it. I'm sure a few of us will be happy to help you learn the ropes somewhat. ICANN is a complicated institution. 

> 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. 

	My impression is very much that if RC members engage in constructive dialogue on policy grounds, they will be welcomed. And if they continue trying to push a process that minimises the opportunity for policy dialogue, and continues to push their case as beyond debate and beyond the normal process, they will receive a much less enthusiastic welcome. I hope these members will understand that understanding how to long term engage with ICANN generally (including NCSG, but obviously not limited to it) is a much better goal to approach the meeting with, rather than focusing on the short term (and possibly misguided) effort to push through special protection rules in this one meeting.  

> 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 think the burden of proof lies with the RC - but I'm sure the NCSG members will be happy to explain how the (many) existing mechanisms can be used to achieve desired outcomes.
 
> I will make the point about the principle of being "inside the NCSG tent" is best for all.

I would agree. The RC belongs within NCSG within ICANN. 

Cheers

	David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120306/3406536d/attachment-0001.html>