NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote

[Avri Doria]

On 15 Mar 2012, at 10:41, mary.wong at law.unh.edu wrote:

> - 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.


I want to point out that as one of the NCSG members present at the meeting, I am not in favor of this decision.  I understand the desire to compromise and be reasonable, but in this case being reasonable means going against a  AOC/ATRT policy that was just put in place in Jan 2012 as a way to make sure adequate public opinion was obtained.

But as an observer on the NCSG-PC, I accept that this is the rough consensus of the PC.

I still hope that g-council members, or at least some of them, abstain from the vote whenever it is held and make a statement to protest this effective abrogation of ICANN policy.  I still beleive that any decision made where the full public opinion is not heard and properly considered is an illegitimate decision.

avri