NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote

[Dan Krimm]

Robin,

I'm not able to monitor these events in detail, but seeing the list
traffic.  I didn't see Debbie's posts come through directly, only your
replies with her original msgs incorporated.

Maybe she is also cc-ing you directly?  Is she using the correct email
address with which she is subscribed to the list?

Dan



At 2:11 PM -0700 3/14/12, Robin Gross wrote:
>Not sure why you think you aren't the list.  You are and just posted to it.
>
>Robin
>
>
>On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Hughes, Debra Y. wrote:
>
>>Robin,
>>
>>Since I appear to have been removed from the NCSG/NCUC list, can you
>>please post to the list.  I remain the  representative for American Red
>>Cross within the  NPOC and NCSG.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Debbie
>>
>>Debra Y. Hughes
>>Senior Counsel
>>
>>American Red Cross
>>2025 E Street, NW
>>Washington, D.C. 20006
>>202.303.5356 (p)
>>202.303.0143 (f)
>><mailto:Debra.Hughes at redcross.org>Debra.Hughes at redcross.org
>>
>>From: Hughes, Debra Y.
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:53 PM
>>To: 'Robin
>>Gross'; <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>Subject: RE: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the
>>Vote
>>
>>
>>Robin,
>>
>>Can you please clarify the precise results of the vote by NCSG on this
>>decision for deferral, including whether there was any opposition to this
>>decision by any NCSG constituency?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Debbie
>>
>>
>>Debra Y. Hughes
>>Senior Counsel
>>
>>American Red Cross
>>2025 E Street, NW
>>Washington, D.C. 20006
>>202.303.5356 (p)
>>202.303.0143 (f)
>><mailto:Debra.Hughes at redcross.org>Debra.Hughes at redcross.org
>>
>>From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf
>>Of Robin Gross
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:51 PM
>>To: <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote
>>
>>NCSG finds it impossible to bypass ICANN's bottom-up policy development
>>process in this way.  At a time when multi-stakeholder processes on the
>>Internet are being challenged, this proposal is both questionable on the
>>merits, and contrary to ICANN's processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no
>>option at this stage but to defer the vote at least until the public
>>comment period is closed.
>>Here are the reasons for our deferral.
>>One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public
>>comment period, which allows public engagement and permits those affected
>>by policies to express their views. Public comments constitute a
>>quintessential part of iCANN's ecosystem.  How can ICANN depend on public
>>comments when it makes a decision before they have all been received? The
>>council should not hold a vote on something as important as the implicit
>>creation of a new form of reserved names, especially one that singles out
>>some international organisations for special consideration while ignoring
>>others without full comment. The critical importance of public comments
>>was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a
>>recent comment. Mr Metalitz said:
>>"In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has
>>closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of
>>Commitments, to employ "responsive consultation procedures that provide
>>detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how comments
>>have influenced the development of policy consideration," and to
>>"continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN receives
>>public input (including adequate explanation of decisions taken and the
>>rationale thereof)." <x-msg://784/#_ftn1>[1]
>>We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder
>>group - the IPC.
>>The community should take the necessary time to hear all the views on
>>this issue and examine other proposals, such as those from Portugal
>>earlier this week as well as the proposal from the Not-for-profit
>>Operations Constituency that are intended to create a more fair and less
>>arbitrary standard for reserved names.
>>The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue
>>and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can properly
>>decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote.
>>
>><x-msg://784/#_ftnref1>[1] <http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm,
>>paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c.