Here is my blog's account of the meeting: 
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2012/3/15/5016758.html 

Mary was great, btw. But I cast Rafik Dynamic as hero of the story. 

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> The Council had a vigorous and long debate on the issue at our public
> meeting yesterday. As soon as transcripts and recordings are available,
> we'll post them as it is hard to capture the intensity of the discussion
> via email summary. For now I thought it might be helpful to add a few
> comments to the ongoing discussion on this list:
> 
> - the NCSG Policy Committee works on a consensus basis, and is comprised
> of the Councilors, SG chair and official representatives from each
> Constituency, including candidate constituencies. The decision to
> request a deferral was not unanimous, but was arrived at after long
> discussion (into Tuesday night and Wednesday, up to almost the time for
> the Council meeting!) and consideration of the views of members, as
> expressed on this list and the public comments submitted so far.
> 
> - in addition to the formal NCSG statement that was read out at the
> Council meeting, several Councilors and members who were present
> emphasized that the deferral request was not a delay tactic (as other SG
> reps alleged) but a genuine attempt to defend due process as well as
> highlight new developments that might justify further discussions and
> possible amendments for the final vote - including at least part of the
> new NPOC proposal (submitted to the Drafting team over the weekend),
> recent comments this week by a few GAC members (including Portugal's),
> and changes to the draft motion occasioned at least in part by updates
> from the Red Cross and IOC reps at this meeting.
> 
> - the NCSG PC and EC reps present at the council meeting agreed, upon
> request by other community members and Councilors, that it would be open
> to calling a special Council meeting upon closure of the initial public
> comment period (23 March) without waiting for the reply period to end
> (14 April), as that would allow for sufficient public comment while
> still ensuring that the Council would not be asked ultimately to vote on
> a moot point (as 14 April would be 2 days after applications close for
> new gTLDs). However, we requested that the special Council meeting take
> place only if and after the Drafting Team has time to consider all the
> public comments submitted and possible revision of the motion as a
> result.
> 
> - the DT will recommence discussions next week and start reviewing
> public comments submitted by then. Thank you to the members who have
> written in so far; if you have not but have views on the issue, please
> do so at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ioc-rcrc-proposal-
> 02mar12-en.htm
> 
> - finally, a reminder that this issue and the motion before the Council
> is only in respect of the top level for this first round. More work will
> then commence on second level protectikns for this and all future
> rounds, as well as issues concerning top level protection for the second
> and future rounds. This last may include consideration of the formal
> request the ICANN Board made a few days ago, to both the GNSO and the
> GAC, for policy advice regarding the recent request by intergovernmental
> organizations for additional top and second level protections for their
> names as well.
> 
> I hope this helps!
> Mary
> 
> Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or
> typographical errors.
> 
> "Alain Berranger <[log in to unmask]>"
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 
> The inclusion of a reference to the NPOC proposal cannot be
> interpretated by anyone as a reason for deferral. The statement being
> read under NCSG is actually by NCSG-PC where only 1 NPOC member's
> opinion does not represent an official NPOC position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> 
> > Deb,
> >
> > RedCross / IOC's request for special rights was a subject of
> > significant discussion at Monday's NCSG Policy Committee Meeting and
> > also at the NCSG membership meeting yesterday.  The members of the
> > committee agreed with the deferral.  You can listen to the recordings
> > of these meetings or read the transcripts to get a more precise
> > understanding of the position.  Pity you did not participate in any of
> > these discussions.  NPOC representative (acting vice-chair of NPOC)
> > Alain Berranger confirmed in an email to the NCSG-PC some changes he
> wanted to the NCSG stmt and they were incorporated.
> >  See here:
> >
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/2012-March/000172.html
> >
> > It is worth noting, however, that positions by the NCSG are not taken
> > by the constituencies, but by the individual members on the PC, which
> > includes
> > 2 NPOC representatives.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Robin
> >
> >
> > On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Hughes, Debra Y. wrote:
> >
> > Robin,****
> > ** **
> > Robin,****
> > ** **
> > Can you please clarify the precise results of the vote by NCSG on this
> > decision for deferral, including whether there was any opposition to
> this
> > decision by any NCSG constituency?    ****
> > ** **
> > Thanks,****
> > Debbie****
> >    ****
> > ** **
> > *Debra Y. Hughes *
> > *Senior Counsel *
> > ** **
> > *American Red Cross*
> > 2025 E Street, NW****
> > Washington, D.C. 20006****
> > 202.303.5356 (p)****
> > 202.303.0143 (f)****
> > *[log in to unmask]*
> > ** **
> > *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
> > Of *Robin Gross
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:51 PM
> > *To:* [log in to unmask]
> > *Subject:* [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of
> > the
> > Vote****
> > ** **
> > NCSG finds it impossible to bypass ICANN's bottom-up policy
> > development process in this way.  At a time when multi-stakeholder
> > processes on the Internet are being challenged, this proposal is both
> > questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN's processes.
> > Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer the vote
> > at least until the public comment period is closed.**** Here are the
> > reasons for our deferral.**** One of the most important parts of the
> > ICANN process is the public comment period, which allows public
> > engagement and permits those affected by policies to express their
> > views. Public comments constitute a quintessential part of iCANN's
> > ecosystem.  How can ICANN depend on public comments when it makes a
> > decision before they have all been received? The council should not
> > hold a vote on something as important as the implicit creation of a
> > new form of reserved names, especially one that singles out some
> > international organisations for special consideration while ignoring
> > others without full comment. The critical importance of public
> > comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve Metalitz, chair of
> > the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said:**** "In trying to make
> > the decision before the public comment period has closed, ICANN has
> > failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of Commitments, to
> > employ "responsive consultation procedures that provide detailed
> > explanations of the basis for decisions, including how comments have
> > influenced the development of policy consideration," and to
> > "continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN
> > receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions
> > taken and the rationale thereof)." [1]**** We could not agree more
> > with this statement by our fellow stakeholder group - the IPC.**** The
> > community should take the necessary time to hear all the views on this
> > issue and examine other proposals, such as those from Portugal earlier
> > this week as well as the proposal from the Not-for-profit Operations
> > Constituency that are intended to create a more fair and less
> > arbitrary standard for reserved names.**** The NCSG-Policy Committee
> > believes that this is a critical policy issue and needs the full
> > guidance of the public comments before it can properly decide how to
> > vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote.****
> > ------------------------------
> > [1]
> > http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-e
> > n.htm,
> > paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c.****
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
> http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-
> directors/>
> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
> www.schulich.yorku.ca Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation,
> www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation,
> www.chasquinet.org interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG,
> ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> Skype: alain.berranger