I followed online and was very impressed with Mary's calm and patient approach. Congratulations! Dorothy K. Gordon Director-General Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT Mobile: 233 265005712 Direct Line: 233 302 683579 Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Milton L Mueller" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Thursday, 15 March, 2012 5:48:09 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia Subject: Re: NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote 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