Re: [gtld-council] NCUC stmt on new gtld policy recommendations

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

In my reading of the NCUS document, it seems quite reasonable that  
these are indeed the impacts, including both the ways and reasons, in  
which they believe the new policy will affect the work of many of the  
organizations that belong to the NCUC. I certainly have no difficulty  
believing that an organization that includes the membership of NCUC  
would see the issues listed in the document as "An analysis of how  
the issue would affect the constituency".
Additionally, I am not sure that it is the best practice for one  
constituency to  comment on the validity of the comments of another  
constituency or practices of another constituency when we are  
involved in a process of trying to reach agreement with the hope of  
(rough) consensus.    It we get into the practice of people from one  
constituency staring into other constituencies with an eye of  
questioning or judging the validity of their activities we will have  
more problems on our hands then we could possibly wade through.  As  
far as I can tell the by-laws, as currently written, leave the  
organizational style and decision making procedures of each  
constituency up to that constituency as defined in its charter. I  
would think that this includes the ability for each constituency to  
decide for itself what the impacts of a proposed policy are for their  
constituency.
thanks

a.


On 13 jun 2007, at 22.58, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Robin,
>
> Is this the Impact Statement that Liz had requested from each of the
> constituencies?
>
> I confess that I have not had time to read the entire document, but at
> first glance it looks more like an opinion statement than an impact
> statement.  Certainly, the opinions of the NCUC are important and  
> should
> be considered in the final deliberations of the Council on the report
> that will be sent to the Board, but unless I am misunderstanding
> something, the purpose of impact statements is different:  Annex A of
> the ICANN Bylaws, Section 11.c, says that the Final Report to the  
> Board
> must include "An analysis of how the issue would affect each
> constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency".  I
> presume that Liz needs the impact statements so that she can perform
> that analysis for the Council.  Liz - please correct me if I am  
> wrong on
> this.
>
> Chuck Gomes
>
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly  
> prohibited. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:56 PM
> > To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Milton Mueller; Liz Williams
> > Subject: [gtld-council] NCUC stmt on new gtld policy recommendations
> >
> > NCUC Statement on PDP-Dec05:
> >
> >
> > http://www.ipjustice.org/ICANN/drafts/PDP-Dec05-NCUC-CONST-STM
> T-JUNE2007.htm
> >        or
> >
> > http://www.ipjustice.org/ICANN/drafts/PDP-Dec05-NCUC-CONST-STM
> T-JUNE2007.pdf
> > Thanks,
> > Robin