NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Avri's intervention was also excellent.

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 03/15/2012 02:51 PM, Dorothy K. Gordon wrote:
> I followed online and was very impressed with Mary's calm and patient approach. Congratulations!
>
> Dorothy K. Gordon
> Director-General
> Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT
> Mobile: 233 265005712
> Direct Line: 233 302 683579
> Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Milton L Mueller"<mueller at SYR.EDU>
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, 15 March, 2012 5:48:09 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia
> Subject: Re: NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote
>
> Here is my blog's account of the meeting:
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2012/3/15/5016758.html
>
> Mary was great, btw. But I cast Rafik Dynamic as hero of the story.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> The Council had a vigorous and long debate on the issue at our public
>> meeting yesterday. As soon as transcripts and recordings are available,
>> we'll post them as it is hard to capture the intensity of the discussion
>> via email summary. For now I thought it might be helpful to add a few
>> comments to the ongoing discussion on this list:
>>
>> - the NCSG Policy Committee works on a consensus basis, and is comprised
>> of the Councilors, SG chair and official representatives from each
>> Constituency, including candidate constituencies. The decision to
>> request a deferral was not unanimous, but was arrived at after long
>> discussion (into Tuesday night and Wednesday, up to almost the time for
>> the Council meeting!) and consideration of the views of members, as
>> expressed on this list and the public comments submitted so far.
>>
>> - in addition to the formal NCSG statement that was read out at the
>> Council meeting, several Councilors and members who were present
>> emphasized that the deferral request was not a delay tactic (as other SG
>> reps alleged) but a genuine attempt to defend due process as well as
>> highlight new developments that might justify further discussions and
>> possible amendments for the final vote - including at least part of the
>> new NPOC proposal (submitted to the Drafting team over the weekend),
>> recent comments this week by a few GAC members (including Portugal's),
>> and changes to the draft motion occasioned at least in part by updates
>> from the Red Cross and IOC reps at this meeting.
>>
>> - the NCSG PC and EC reps present at the council meeting agreed, upon
>> request by other community members and Councilors, that it would be open
>> to calling a special Council meeting upon closure of the initial public
>> comment period (23 March) without waiting for the reply period to end
>> (14 April), as that would allow for sufficient public comment while
>> still ensuring that the Council would not be asked ultimately to vote on
>> a moot point (as 14 April would be 2 days after applications close for
>> new gTLDs). However, we requested that the special Council meeting take
>> place only if and after the Drafting Team has time to consider all the
>> public comments submitted and possible revision of the motion as a
>> result.
>>
>> - the DT will recommence discussions next week and start reviewing
>> public comments submitted by then. Thank you to the members who have
>> written in so far; if you have not but have views on the issue, please
>> do so at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ioc-rcrc-proposal-
>> 02mar12-en.htm
>>
>> - finally, a reminder that this issue and the motion before the Council
>> is only in respect of the top level for this first round. More work will
>> then commence on second level protectikns for this and all future
>> rounds, as well as issues concerning top level protection for the second
>> and future rounds. This last may include consideration of the formal
>> request the ICANN Board made a few days ago, to both the GNSO and the
>> GAC, for policy advice regarding the recent request by intergovernmental
>> organizations for additional top and second level protections for their
>> names as well.
>>
>> I hope this helps!
>> Mary
>>
>> Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or
>> typographical errors.
>>
>> "Alain Berranger<alain.berranger at GMAIL.COM>"
>> <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-e
>>> n.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
>