[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012

Thu Apr 12 21:08:17 EEST 2012

I am assuming the language its what the g-council members could agree on as there were two competing motions.
Also I am sure the issues you want considered in the issues report will be. otherwise that is something that can be commend on during the review.

I don't understand the basis for reproach.  We are just at the start of the PDP process - plenty of time to get everything considered.

Avri

Alain Berranger <alain.berranger at gmail.com> wrote:

>Colleagues,
>
>I just read the last resolution past today - see below. I must state my
>utter disappointment, for 3 reasons:
>
>First at the Stakeholders' Group level, it was agreed in NCSG-PC
>exchanges
>that the concept of "International Legal Personality" flushed out by
>NPOC
>in San Jos?, was valuable and would be part of a "whereas" clause of
>our
>motion or any friendly motion supported by NCSG GNSO Councillors. I
>note
>with regret that this was not respected.
>
>Second, the resolution deals only with  IGOs (International
>Governmental
>Organizations). It exclude International Non-Governmental Organizations
>(INGOs), a major current and future constituency of NPOC. The Red Cross
>for
>instance is not an IGO, it is an INGO with "International Legal
>Personality". In a multi-stakeholder organization like ICANN, the place
>and
>voice of civil society must be equal to that of governments,
>individuals
>and private sector.  Not including INGOs in this resolution is not
>adhering
>to that principle and places civil society as "last amongst equals".
>Including only IGOs places Governments as "first amongst equals".
>
>Finally, it is also very disappointing that after a long period of
>systematic complaints by NCUC members about the lack of participation
>in
>policy debate by NPOC members, that the very first substantive proposal
>by
>NPOC since Dakar is brushed aside. I wrote at least two recent emails
>to
>indicate the NPOC position was clear and strong about insertion of the
>concept of "ILP" in a "Whereas" paragraph. So much for NCUC-NPOC
>agreement
>of collaboration agreed to in San Jos?. In retrospect, with all GNSO
>Councillors for NCSG coming from NCUC, it was naive of me to assume and
>trust that NPOC's relatively well balanced suggestion would not be
>eroded
>little by little until it was totally diluted out in the statement:
>*"And
>whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to
>such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica".
>*I
>know of only one criteria proposal suggested in Costa Rica: the use of
>the
>International Legal Personality test proposed by NPOC. The Portugal
>representative statement at the GAC meeting alluded possibly to this
>generic concept but was not as carefully and sharply worded as the NPOC
>proposal. Very disappointing and quite a missed opportunity to work
>together... It only means that we need to get NPOC members elected to
>GNSO
>positions. Unfortunatley, with the NCSG voting landscape as it now
>stands,
>this is very unlikely for a long long time!
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM
>Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012
>To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>** **
>
>Dear All,****
>
>** **
>
>The GNSO Council passed the following resolutions at the meeting
>today, 12 April  2012.****
>
>A recording of the meeting is available at:****
>
>http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120412-en.mp3
>
>Please let me know if you have any questions.****
>
>** **
>
>Thank you.****
>
>Kind regards,****
>
>** **
>
>Glen****
>
>** **
>
>** **
>
>*1. Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process*****
>
>Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at
>its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see
>http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);****
>
>Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by
>staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see
>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);****
>
>Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2
>February 2012 (see
>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);****
>
>Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council
>proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of
>the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN
>has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN
>policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;****
>
>Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its
>meeting of 14 March 2012 (see
>http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);****
>
>Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, also taking into account
>the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced
>support for a delay in the start of the PDP until contract
>negotiations on the .com agreement are complete, as the results of
>that negotiation may determine whether a PDP on ?thick? Whois is still
>required.****
>
>THEREFORE BE IT:****
>
>Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a
>charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the .com
>negotiations have been completed by 30 November 2012.****
>
>Motion to delay the ?thick? Whois Policy Development Process****
>
>Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at
>its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see
>http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);****
>
>Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was prepared by
>staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see
>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);****
>
>Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2
>February 2012 (see
>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);****
>
>Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council
>proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of
>the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN
>has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN
>policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;****
>
>Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its
>meeting of 14 March 2012 (see
>http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);****
>
>Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the
>current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced
>support for a delay in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and
>GNSO resources are available to deal with this. ****
>
>THEREFORE BE IT:****
>
>Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a
>charter) of the ?thick? Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO
>Council meeting after 30 November 2012.****
>
>** **
>
>*Motion to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and
>acronyms of IGOs*****
>
>Whereas on September 7, 2007 the GNSO Council approved by
>supermajority vote a PDP on new gTLDs with a number of
>recommendations, none of which afforded special protection to specific
>applicants;****
>
>Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections
>for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the
>GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red
>Crescent (RC) Drafting Team;****
>
>Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were
>required on associated policies relating to protections for certain
>international organizations at the second level, if any;****
>
>Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that
>included requests from international governmental organizations
>requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for
>the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program;****
>
>And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective
>rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in
>Costa Rica.****
>
>Now therefore be it resolved,****
>
>The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility
>of a PDP that covers the following issues:****
>
>- Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special
>protection at the top and second level, if any; and****
>
>- Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and
>second level.****
>
>** **
>
>Glen de Saint G?ry****
>
>GNSO Secretariat****
>
>gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org****
>
>http://gnso.icann.org****
>
>** **
>
>
>
>-- 
>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
>Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation,
>www.gkpfoundation.org
>NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
>Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
>O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>Skype: alain.berranger
>_______________________________________________
>PC-NCSG mailing list
>PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg