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

Wed Mar 14 19:43:27 EET 2012

Thanks Konstantinos. Did not know that about the DT. Time is running out
for more discussions - just an hunch mind you...

Alain

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis <
k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:

> Thanks Alain
>
> This was originally proposed to the DT but was not accepted at the time.
> So all recommendations were created on the basis that they apply for both
> orgs. If the now wish to separate them, then I suggest we go back and
> reopen the discussions.
>
> KK
>
> Sent from my iPhone - excuse any typos
>
> On 14 Mar 2012, at 11:29, "Alain Berranger" <alain.berranger at gmail.com
> <mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Chiming in...
>
> Focusing on generic framework solutions (whatever we end up with) and its
> future application will serve us well because the floodgates of exception
> requests (based on precedance) will be locked down permanently... Let's
> stop criticizing the RC and their reps... we are forgetting the RC proposed
> generic solutions early and they were pushed back... Now, an UN+/- 10 is
> something many can live with. So, in conclusion I agree with Mary'
> suggestions.
>
> Alain
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:
> robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
> No.
>
> Robin
>
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:06 AM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu<mailto:
> 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<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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> --
> 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
> <http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>
> Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org<
> http://www.gkpfoundation.org>
> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org<
> http://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
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>

-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120314/f8ffdfea/attachment.html>