[PC-NCSG] NCSG endorsement of NPOC letter on GNSO review

[marie-laure Lemineur]

Dear Nuno,

You are questioning NPOC?s good faith. I also infer from your very clear
wording that in your opinion, it would a bad thing if NPOC could "gain
position inside GNSO".

The periodic review of all SO/AC is mandated by ICANN Bylaws title IV,
Section 4. Thus ICANN is obliged to conduct the review. The issue at stake
is whether it will be further delayed or not.  The review is going to take
place sooner or later,  regardless of NPOC?s views, or any hidden
intentions we might have, as you suggest.

On this particular issue,  we are fighting for a stronger and more
efficient GNSO. What?s at stake is the credibility of the GNSO as a
policy-making body in a changing and challenging context. This is what we
focus our energy on. The bigger picture.  NCSG members and non-NCSG
community members who know us, are aware that we do not spend valuable
volunteer time practicing  what I would qualify as "petty thinking" as you
imply. This simply proves that you do not know us. This is why I feel that
you insinuating that we might have ill intentions by submitting these
comments,  is not only offensive but also unfair;

If you had read our statement as well the other public comments posted - I
invite you to do so -  you would have seen that not only NPOC but also
GOOGLE Inc and  ISPCP are against postponing of the review. Therefore, if
you interpret  NPOC wish to urge the commencement of the GNSO review
soonest, as a possible "attempt to gain position inside GNSO", you should
be coherent and  reach the same conclusion with ISPCP and GOOGLE.  Wouldn?t
this be ridiculous ?

Once again, if you had read our comments, you would have seen that the
arguments exposed in it, are fact-based and contextualized alluding either
to ICANN norms or to the previous review. Since you are an academic, you
should be able to value that.

Lastly, even if you seem to dislike the idea, as Chair of NPOC I can
reassure  you that at NPOC, we are all indeed working very hard to "gain
position within the GNSO".  As Avri rightly reminded you, NPOC is part of
the NCSG. This means that if and when NPOC is able  to "gain position in
the GNSO"  -whatever this means-, NSCG will also be  strong or stronger in
the GNSO. And for those of us who do believe in the mission of the Non
Commercial Stakeholder Group in the ICANN world, this would be good news.

Best,

Marie-laure


On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Nuno Garcia <ngarcia at ngarcia.net> wrote:

> I have doubts about this, and it seems that it may look like an attempt
> from NPOC to gain position inside GNSO.
>
> I maybe wrong, I have been wrong before...
>
> my 2cents
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Nuno
>
>
> On 4 September 2013 23:17, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/
>>
>> The suggestion is the the NCSG endorse it.
>> I will write up a draft note.
>> It needs to be sent in by the 6th.
>>
>> Anyone have questions, objection etc?
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130905/e21f48ec/attachment.html>