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

Wed Mar 14 18:58:13 EET 2012

No Mary ? this was a suggestion that I put on the table back in December 2011 and the DT did not accept it. The fact that now suddenly they are willing to do this now (FYI-this did not make it to the list) just because they don't want us to defer is ridiculous. And, of course we need to pay attention to the threats ? this is bullying in its worst form!

KK

From: "Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU<mailto:Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU>" <Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU<mailto:Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU>>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:06:14 +0000
To: "Avri org>" <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>, "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council

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<mailto:avri at acm.org>>" <avri at acm.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>" <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto: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<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg