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-en.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