Also, the NPOC proposal has two parts: a) approve the RC-IOC exemption; b) use the criteria of International Legal Personality to develop a generic solution... On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Alain Berranger <[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-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 > > -- 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