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

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

Avri,

You seem to making some huge and inaccurate assumptions in terms of what
my message said.  Please note my responses below.

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 Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:02 AM
> To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] NCUC stmt on new gtld policy 
> recommendations 
> 
> 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.

Chuck: I don't believe that I questioned the validity of the comments at
all; in fact, I specifically stated that the opinions in the document
were valid and should be considered.  It just did not seem clear to me
that the statement was in fact an impact statement, so I asked for
clarification and Robin provided it.

>    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.

Chuck: Where did this come from?  Is it because I asked how many
non-commercial organizations were involved in developing the statement?
That to me seems like a valid question to ask for all constituency
statements.  The amount of involvement does not in any way mean that the
input is invalid but it does provide data that can be used in
determining how well the input represents the broader community.  If it
doesn't come from a fairly representative sample of the constituency
community, maybe there is need for more outreach.  How would we know
that if we don't answer the question?  Isn't that what 'bottom up' is
supposed to mean?

>  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
> >>
> >
> >
> 
>