Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23.

[Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Excellent statement Rudi, thanks very much!!
Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-09-30 11:31, Rudi Vansnick wrote:
> Dear GNSO review party members,
>
> NPOC has reviewed the Westlake Governance's Final GNSO Review Report 
> and submits the following comments and observations.
> First, we wish to set the context for these comments. NPOC consists of 
> and represents non-profit and civil society 
> constituency organizations. NPOC strives to encompass and represent 
> the interests and concerns of that vast constituency of organizations 
> for whom the Internet ecosystem and DNS operational concerns impact on 
> their mission and their work, but for whom their mission and 
> work focus on community development, social justice, human services, 
> etc., and not on the Internet per se.
> NPOC sees outreach to the constituency to raise awareness and 
> engagement as central to its mission, and as important as 
> bringing constituency organizations into ICANN volunteer work and 
> ICANN policy development and implementation. For a 
> multistakeholder organization to survive and thrive there is need for 
> broad and deep constituency engagement.
> In NPOC’s review of the Final GNSO Review Report two specific issues 
> stand out.
>   * The first concern, shared with other constituencies, is that the
>     methods used to gather and analyze evidence in the report have
>     serious shortcomings.
>   * The second is that a number of the conclusions and recommendations
>     lack appreciation of the context within ICANN, lack an adequate
>     evidence base, and are under defined for purposes of implementation.
>
> However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the 
> conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do 
> so would overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks 
> offering validation of Report content where validation is not warranted.
> NPOC has larger concerns with regard to the potential uses of the 
> Report. NPOC would have no issue with the Final GNSO Review Report 
> being treated as a "green paper" and food for thought within the ICANN 
> multistakeholder community. NPOC would have serious reservations about 
> the report being used as "expert" justification for top-down ICANN 
> Board action with regard to the GNSO. That would be an abuse of the 
> ways in which expertise should be incorporated into decision making in 
> what should be a bottom up multistakeholder decision making process.
> In short, NPOC calls for the Board to treat the Westlake Final GNSO 
> Review Report as food for thought and return the Review of the GNSO to 
> a bottom up stakeholder decision making process. Such a process may 
> take longer, and be a bit less orderly, but it will have greater 
> legitimacy within ICANN’s remit as a multistakeholder organization and 
> produce better results in the long run.
> Rudi Vansnick
> Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC)
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>
> rudi.vansnick@xxxxxxxx <mailto:rudi.vansnick@xxxxxxxx>
> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32