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

[Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rudi,

Thank you so much for your email and remarks.  These are all very important 
points,  which need to be addressed.  I know we have a call scheduled to start 
here shortly.

In the interest of using our time as productively as possible today, I’d like 
to suggest that we proceed as planned with talking through the other 35 
recommendations and deciding if we, as the Working Party, think each 
recommendation is one that is generally supported by the community and feasible 
or if we think it is not generally supported or not feasible.  We can base this 
on the public comments received on the recommendations and input from your 
respective groups.

This will help us to be prepared for the upcoming Dublin meeting.  If the OEC 
were to accept your recommendation that this be treated as a “Green Paper,” we 
would still want to be prepared with our opinion on which recommendations would 
be appropriate to move into implementation so I think however the issue you 
raised is resolved, our recommendations will be meaningful in an effort for 
continuous improvement in the GNSO.

There were 178 members of our community who did complete surveys and 40+ people 
who were interviewed, so I think taking a look at the recommendations and 
providing our perspective would be helpful to the community.

I look forward to talking with you all shortly!

Jen

jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB
Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm
513.746.2800 x 1 or Cell 513.238.4348
IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014
What will you do with your Dot Brand?  : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P
Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs  http://ow.ly/Eblgc
Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column  http://ow.ly/EbljP
Linked In Group:  gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Rudi Vansnick
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 11:32 AM
To: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Excom NPOC <excom@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 
23.

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