[PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH joint Letter about GNSO review

[Edward Morris]

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>