[PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds

[Kathryn Kleiman]

Hi Robin,
It's an amazing letter, and one I truly support. My only question is whether we should save questions about process for a different letter?

The follow 3 paragraphs strike me as a little harsh given our robust participation in the Brussels session today. I also wonder whether we welcome the opportunity to participate in a policy session - even equally?  I'm a little upset about being pulled away from client work to have to debate resurrected policy issues.

So I would ask for a brief rewrite or even deletion of the following paragraphs. Otherwise absolutely awesome, passionate, poetic letter.
Best,
Kathy
P.s. please accept or reject at will as I am going to sleep soon :)
---------------------------


Executive Summary:
*             ICANN staff instructions to the community to re-think GNSO consensus policy withoutt equal participation of all affected stakeholders in that decision would be inappropriate. [To what does this refer?]

End of letter text:
While we greatly appreciate the efforts of the CEO to reach out to us and accommodate NCSG participation, we remind ICANN that a one-sided meeting with staff would be an inappropriate forum for making any decisions about sending GNSO-approved policy back to the community for re-working.  [I think this has now been eliminated as a possibility due to our response last week, so perhaps we can delete this paragraph?]

We urge ICANN to honor its commitment to transparency, accountability and the multi-equal stakeholder policy development process by making a clear public announcement about the specific purpose and limited scope of the meetings on November 1st, 2nd and 15th on RPMs. [Perhaps delete this too? ]

NCSG welcomes the invitation and the opportunity to meet with ICANN's CEO and senior staff in the equal manner afforded to the proponents of the IPC-BC proposals.  [Do we welcome the invitation, or we appreciate the invitation, but express sadness that we return again to debate policy issues that we thought had been long settled. ] We stand ready to further elaborate on the specific proposals [existing policy in the Guidebook?] in detail, including the history and context from which they derive, and their relationship to existing law and consensus policy.  Thank you.

From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:33 PM
To: NCSG-Policy
Cc: Milton Mueller
Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised statement on new rpm proposals for tlds

So I've revised the NCSG statement on the IPC-BC proposal for new RPMs in light of the new information about the discussions on the 1st, 2nd, and 15th on the issue.

Please let me know if you'd like any more changes to the proposed document in the next day.  I'd really like to publish the statement in time for it to be relevant for the discussions on the 1st.

Thanks very much!

Best,
Robin






IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20121101/9de22583/attachment.html>