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

[Nuno Garcia]

Ch?re Marie-Laure,

I wrote "it may look like", meaning, this may look like NPOC is trying to
gain position. No judgment of values in there. I did not infer, nor assume
it would be bad or good. I also started by saying "I have doubts".

I thank you very much for the time and trouble you took to give such a
detailed explanation, I feel honored.

Warm regards,

Nuno


On 5 September 2013 22:02, marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/d6df1fc5/attachment.html>