[PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review
Edward Morris
egmorris1
Sat Jul 25 02:31:22 EEST 2015
Hello,
It's rather late here so I'll make this quick but I wanted to let everyone
know that I will not be supporting any substantive response to the Westlake
report. I don't want to hold everyone else back so I expect I'll abstain if
an NCSG opinion is presented to the pc for approval, but I'll need to see
it first. I have been unable to access the Google Docs document
referenced in this email to evaluate it as I'm out of my country of
registration and that seems to make Google mad. Horrid product that we need
to exile from the GNSO.
I will be filing an individual comment with my views (thanks for the
extension) but they basically are as follows:
1. The Westlake study used methodology that is completely flawed;
2. Any conclusion derived from this deeply flawed study is invalid as the
data itself is being improperly manipulated to draw conclusions for which
the study has been not constructed to support;
3. Taking the study seriously by responding to substantive points gives it
credibility it does not deserve.
All we really have are opinions of a few New Zealanders who talked to
people they were directed to speak with. Period. You do not restructure the
organisation responsible for making the rules that govern much of the dns
on the basis of an unscientific study which uses a huge amount of
approximation and casts numerical data as window dressing so it can pretend
to be a serious piece of work.
The only proper response to this so called study ids to reject it on the
basis of flawed methodology and demand it be redone in a proper and valid
manner (which why I've filed a DIDP to try to get the terms of reference)
or ignore it completely and have our own community review and restructure
the GNSO, if necessary and a if consensus can be reached to do so.
Hi all,
Apologies for the late notice on this. Please note the current version of
the letter has been distributed to the CSG and I have early indications
will be supported.
So any changes would need to be restricted to major issues only if
possible. Given the diversity of the views we need it to be very neutral
and nonpartisan in order to garner support from both sides of the NCPH.
Then screw it.
A public comment is not the place to compromise. You do that on Council.
You do that in Working Groups. You "compromise" in public comments when
your views are aggregated by staff and compared and contrasted with other
groups. Having a watered down version of our own views submitted hurts our
position during the aggregation process, it does not help it.
Judging from the comments already received we have severe differences with
the constituent members of the CSG regarding many of the flawed
substantive conclusions of the New Zealand consultancy. The proper way to
deal with this is not to compromise and submit a "neutral and nonpartisan"
document. It is for all groups to submit their views and for the
aggregation process to summarise, compare and contrast the comments. I
don't need to be arguing about some of this in Council deliberations in a
few months time and have a CSG member throw back a position in my face that
we signed off on as a compromise in the public comment.
I presume folks know how the staff processes public comments. If not, here
goes: If there are a decent number of comments the staff takes anywhere
from 3-5 of the more substantive comments and use them as the basis for
categorising comments. It's a big advantage to be one of the base comments.
Mine was used as one of the reference doc's from the original
accountability public comment period (before the group was formed) and it
was obvious to me the oversized impact that comment had in the way the
staff structured the response. It was sort of neat. :) I would prefer not
to have the possibility of a "neutral and nonpartisan" document being used
as a reference base and effectively knocking down some of our positions
the others disagree with. It's a real risk.
Let me be clear: I am not opposed to working and finding common cause with
other groups. The written public comment period is just not generally the
place to do it. If anything, during this period we should be encouraging
individual comments from members in addition to the group comment. The
public comment period is a time to expand the diversity of opinion, not to
narrow it.
Appreciate your hard work on this, James, and I'm happy to take a look at
it but as a general rule I am not in favour of any compromise of our
positions at this stage of policy development. Whether the comment comes
from Ed Morris, the CSG or the NCSG or the NCPH really doesn't matter at
this stage. In fact, during aggregation common positions are actually more
powerful if presented in separate documents than if presented in a unitary
one. A watered down version of our positions to obtain harmony with the CSG
IMHO will tend to do more harm than good.
Best,
Ed
Thanks all,
-James
From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 7:49 PM
To: NCSG-Policy; James Gannon
Subject: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review
hi everyone,
there was discussion in NCPH breakfast in BA to work on joint letter about
GNSO review. James volunteered and shared with NCSG and CSG a draft letter
ready to be reviewed and endorsed.
please check it here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D2lCIUC6nSVx21CZm8m0vcENKLSV7RwbC-09iSxg
Zeo/edit?usp=sharing and lets endorse it and confirm with CSG counterpart.
Best Regards,
Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150724/b8aa943f/attachment.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list