NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote

[Alain Berranger]

Also, the NPOC proposal has two parts: a) approve the RC-IOC exemption; b)
use the criteria of International Legal Personality to develop a generic
solution...



On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Alain Berranger
<alain.berranger at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
>


-- 
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/20120314/6ae28f69/attachment-0001.html>