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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill,

I think it is still somewhat up in the error.  I suggested in our call 
yesterday that we could use some time talking about a possible statement but 
everyone else seemed to want to wait because the OEC gave us more time.

Chuck

From: William Drake [mailto:wjdrake@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 2:07 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Sam Lanfranco; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Excom NPOC
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO 
rec 23.

Hi

Thanks for the textual exegesis. I’m ok with food for thought, although I 
suspect it may lead to indigestion.  But sorry to be dense, having missed the 
call I’m not clear how we are proceeding with respect to the statement on 23, 
on which we put in time through an iterative process but then got some dissent. 
 Could someone give me a step by step here on whether we are hoping for some 
further process that will lead to consensus, or are instead submitting it just 
on behalf of the like minded, or what?

Thanks

Bill

On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Thank you very much Sam.  That answers my questions and I believe that the 
Working Party is on the same page as the NPOC.

Chuck

From: Sam Lanfranco [mailto:sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:06 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Rudi Vansnick; 
gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Excom NPOC
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO 
rec 23.

As part of the NPOC ExCom I will respond to Chuck's query with regard to the 
NPOC statement on the Westlake final GNSO review report.

I will relay the sense of our position here, but Rudi and others may wish to 
add more.
NPOC is not suggesting that the GNSO Review be started over, and it of course 
supports the Working Party process.

As a contributor to the phrasing in the document, here is my perspective on the 
challenges that are ahead for this process. There is a general feeling that the 
well meaning Westlake people failed to understand much about ICANN and the 
context in which the GNSO operates, and that this impacted on how they arrived 
at their recommendations. As a result I would suggest that the Report be 
treated like yet another submission with regard to the GNSO (albeit an 
expensive one with some identified flaws in methods used), and that the Report 
be used as food for thought.

Working Party implementation guidelines should be based on the importance of 
issues in their own right and not just because they were flagged by the Report. 
As well, being listed in the report can bring issues to our attention but in 
and of itself should not justify their inclusion in implementation guidelines. 
In my view, to protect the interests of C's and SGs we have to guard against 
any top down push to use select parts of the Report. I of course support the 
process whereby suggestions made by the Working Party are considered by the 
broader GNSO community, and do see that as "bottom-up".

Sam L, Chair
NPOC Policy Committee

 On 30/09/2015 1:49 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Rudi,

Let me add my thanks to that from others for a thoughtful statement.  I do have 
a few questions though.

More clarity in terms of what the NPOC means in terms of the following would be 
helpful:  “return the Review of the GNSO to a bottom up stakeholder decision 
making process”.  My understanding is that the Working Party will now review 
the recommendations with the goal of suggesting some implementation guidelines 
to the GNSO as a whole.  Because the Working Party is fully open and 
representation is encouraged from all C’s and SGs and others and because any 
suggestions we make will be considered by the broader GNSO community, would the 
NPOC consider that process to be “a bottom up stakeholder decision making 
process”?  Or is the NPOC suggesting that the GNSO Review be started over?

There are other options of course rather than using the Working Party.  An 
Implementation Review Team could be formed along the lines of what happens for 
policy issues.

I asked these questions of you but I realize that they are really for all of us 
in the Working Party to consider as we evaluate our next steps.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Excom NPOC
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






--

------------------------------------------------

"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured

in an unjust state" -Confucius

------------------------------------------------

Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)

Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3

email: Lanfran@xxxxxxxx<mailto:Lanfran@xxxxxxxx>   Skype: slanfranco

blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com<http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com/>

Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852

*********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org<http://www.ncuc.org>
william.drake@xxxxxx<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx> (direct), 
wjdrake@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:wjdrake@xxxxxxxxx> (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org<http://www.williamdrake.org>
Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
*********************************************************