Robin, I'm not able to monitor these events in detail, but seeing the list traffic. I didn't see Debbie's posts come through directly, only your replies with her original msgs incorporated. Maybe she is also cc-ing you directly? Is she using the correct email address with which she is subscribed to the list? Dan At 2:11 PM -0700 3/14/12, Robin Gross wrote: >Not sure why you think you aren't the list. You are and just posted to it. > >Robin > > >On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Hughes, Debra Y. wrote: > >>Robin, >> >>Since I appear to have been removed from the NCSG/NCUC list, can you >>please post to the list. I remain the representative for American Red >>Cross within the NPOC and NCSG. >> >>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) >><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] >> >>From: Hughes, Debra Y. >>Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:53 PM >>To: 'Robin >>Gross'; <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] >>Subject: RE: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the >>Vote >> >> >>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) >><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[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: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[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)." <x-msg://784/#_ftn1>[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. >> >><x-msg://784/#_ftnref1>[1] <http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm, >>paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c.