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

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

Sam,

As the original drafter of the letter, let me respond with my personal thoughts:

·         On our last Working Party call, those on the call felt like it would 
be helpful to provide some timely feedback on concerns the Working Party had on 
Recommendation 23.

·         The reason for singling out Recommendation 23 is spelled out in the 
letter. Here are just a couple of the reasons cited: 1) the Working Party was 
not consulted; 2) it is not well suited to the full GNSO.

·         The rest of the recommendations are going to be considered by the 
Working Party in the coming weeks and feedback will be developed.

·         It would be helpful to me to know if there are statements in the 
draft letter that you or the NPOC as a whole disagree with so that those could 
be addressed.

Chuck

From: Sam Lanfranco [mailto:sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:19 AM
To: William Drake; WUKnoben
Cc: Amr Elsadr; Gomes, Chuck; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO 
rec 23.

Bill Asks:


Isn’t this in effect what we’re doing, saying please treat as food for thought, 
make no decisions based on Westlake 23, and let us have our own process?  That 
being the case, would NPOC agree to send the letter, I’ve not been clear…?

On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:38 PM, Sam Lanfranco 
<sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



As a strategy I would prefer to treat the Westlake GNSO review products as 
"food for though" for a bottom up addressing of where goeth GNSO (in the light 
of Westlake, IANA, Accountability, Membership and what every impacts on context 
here).



As a part of that strategy (and we are talking about strategy not outcomes)I 
would urge the Board to sit on hit hands and wait until it hears the results of 
an open and transparent dialogue, sensitive to all factors impacting context at 
the present time. Of course, I recognize that the NCSG consensus may differ 
from this position.

Bill asks whether or not NPOC would agree to send a letter specifically 
singling out Rec 23 in the Westlake Report as an item for board non-action. 
This is personal and individual response since I cannot talk for either NPOC or 
the NPOC ExCom here. It appears that significant players in both NCSG and NCUC 
have taken particular exception to this one of the many recommendations in the 
Westlake report, while agreeing in principle that the report process itself was 
seriously flawed. Would this NSCG recommendation be taken seriously by the 
Board? I don't know but what I do fear is that it is seen as a "green light" or 
signaling only weak opposition to an overall flawed report, and the Board would 
take the opportunity to range across the rest of the report, and its 
recommendations, and do what it wishes.

I for one, not speaking for NPOC, am of the position that if the rest of NCSG 
feels so strongly about Rec 23, and not much about the rest of the report, how 
it was produced, or how it might be used, and decides that the NCSG statement 
goes forward, it simply contain a statement saying that NPOC has submitted its 
own response, and leave it at that.

I will say that part of my strategy here is to recognize that a number os 
issues that impact on ICANN, its structures and processes are in rapid play at 
the moment and the context in which NCSG (NCUC/NPOC), GNSO, and everything else 
will have to be planning strategy to take, and protect, positions will require 
careful thought and probably opt for a "go slow" strategy.

I have yet to hear why a strategy of singling out one recommendation within a 
flawed report is somehow the best strategy at this time. All I have heard is 
"are you in this with us or not". What is the strategic advantage to singling 
out one recommendation within a flawed report? What is the hurry when we know 
(or suspect) full well that the change process around IANA and Accountability 
will take quite a while to sort out? It is not enough to say "we have been 
discussing this for some time" since all the discussion was focused on the 
wording of a comment solely on Recommendation 23.

Sam