NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote

[Alain Berranger]

The inclusion of a reference to the NPOC proposal cannot be interpretated
by anyone as a reason for deferral. The statement being read under NCSG is
actually by NCSG-PC where only 1 NPOC member's opinion does not represent
an official NPOC position.




On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Deb,
>
> RedCross / IOC's request for special rights was a subject of significant
> discussion at Monday's NCSG Policy Committee Meeting and also at the NCSG
> membership meeting yesterday.  The members of the committee agreed with the
> deferral.  You can listen to the recordings of these meetings or read the
> transcripts to get a more precise understanding of the position.  Pity you
> did not participate in any of these discussions.  NPOC representative
> (acting vice-chair of NPOC) Alain Berranger confirmed in an email to the
> NCSG-PC some changes he wanted to the NCSG stmt and they were incorporated.
>  See here:
>   http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/2012-March/000172.html
>
> It is worth noting, however, that positions by the NCSG are not taken by
> the constituencies, but by the individual members on the PC, which includes
> 2 NPOC representatives.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Hughes, Debra Y. wrote:
>
> Robin,****
> ** **
> 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)****
> *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:* 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).” [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.****
> ------------------------------
> [1]
> http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm,
> paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c.****
>
>
>


-- 
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/20120314/afcb578d/attachment-0001.html>