[PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council

[Robin Gross]

No.

Robin

On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:06 AM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:

> Let's separate the threats and Jeff from the rest of the discussion. I don't know how credible the GAC threat is - frankly, only the US and UK care about this issue and have been the ones pushing seriously hard for this; my impression is that most of the other GAC members are indifferent. Then again, GAC consensus only needs 1 country to insist and no one else to object, so although I don't think the GAC communique will be drafted in time to take our vote today into account, it is likely there will be a further GAC communication - spearheaded by the US - on this if the vote is deferred.
> 
> On the merits of deferral in light of the NPOC proposal and the possibility of separating out the IOC from the RC:
> 
> - Avri's point is what I had in mind. In fact, I think that is a stronger argument than the process point (which can be solved by having a special Council meeting right after the comment period closes, assuming the Council does NOT decide to vote against granting a deferral request today).
> 
> - Would the PC at least discuss/consider voting yes for the RC and no to the IOC, assuming a friendly amendment  to change "may"" to "shall" in Rec 3 is accepted?
> 
> Mary
> 
> "Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Gee so many threats.
> 
> First Jeff obliquely threatens my employment.
> Then the GAC threatens a SG.
> 
> I think meeting circumvention is red meat and perhaps could be toned down. But in such an environment of threats it is hard to find the drive to convince anyone they should do so.
> 
> As for mentioning the NPOC proposal, as you know I support including it in the discussions, but that is not the reason for the deferral.  What could work its to insert a caution against rushing to make policy without having investigated all the issues, for example the thoughts of NPOC and Portugal.
> 
> As for RC and ioc, in all the discussions on the NCSG discuss list, a list the RC its on as members, they have not presented their position. Also remember the RC is a member of NCUC.
> 
> Avri
> 
> Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote:
> 
>> Hello, just a couple of updates from discussions with various people
>> earlier tonight -
>> 
>> If we are to defer, we should add something about the NPOC proposal.
>> 
>> As for updates -
>> 
>> First, Jeff has confirmed he will call for a special Council meeting to
>> vote on this, which may counter the main point our current
>> draftstatement is making.
>> 
>> Second, the IPC may support breaking up the motion as between the IOC
>> and RC, if it means we will vote yes for the RC though not the IOC.
>> 
>> Third, the GAC may react by forcing the Boar to reopen the NCSG charter
>> and constituency issue if we defer.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Mary
>> 
>> "Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Dear NCSG-PC,
>> 
>> As per our discussion in the NCSG policy meeting today, here is NCSG's
>> stmnt on why we will defer tomorrow.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> ______
>> NCSG finds it impossible to acquiesce in yet another circumvention of
>> ICANN?s  bottom up policy development process. At a time when
>> multistakeholder 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
>> a 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 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.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
>