Re: [gtld-council] NCUC stmt on new gtld policy recommendations
So as to avoid such bewilderment in the future, perhaps a revision to the bylaws' annex is needed to take into account consideration for public policy impacts that are not financial.
It seems to me this is a good example where the corporate governance structure of ICANN fails to adequately take into consideration non-corporate perspectives in public policy decisions. Financial impact statements from constituencies to assess a policy makes a lot of sense for the 5 commercial constituencies, but it does not leave much room for discussion of non-commercial impacts, such as human rights. This seems to be a flaw in the particular section of the bylaws and the ICANN policy process in general. If the annex were amended to recognize consideration for non-financial impacts, perhaps some wouldn't be so puzzled when NCUC mentions these impacts. Non-financial impacts could become a part of our regular public policy deliberations.
Robin Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Mawaki. Let me say that I asked the question in my personal capacity only. It's a question that I personally believe should always be asked regarding all statements from constituencies. The answers given do not invalidate the input but they would provide information regarding the representativeness of the broader community from whom the statement purportedly represents. If I was a Board member, I would want that information so that I could evaluate whether their was good outreach to stakeholders in the involved community. Please note that the Constituency Statements required in the PDP actually call for such reporting: ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, Section 7.d.1. I fully recognize that Impact Statements are not the same as Constituency Statements and that this Bylaws section applies to Constituency Statements, but it still in my personal opinion seems useful to have as much information as possible in all statements coming from constituencies including some information about level of support from the applicable community. Note that the RyC did not include this information but I would not at all be offended if the question was asked and I would be happy to answer it. Please accept my apologies if asking the question was offensive in some way. I was not at all picking on the NCUC; I would ask the the same question of any constituency and in fact have in other venues. Regarding the views of the NCUC, I personally believe that you make some valid points and appreciate your input, so my intent was not at all to minimize your opinions. They are critical and important to the process. But I also believe it is helpful to have information regarding representativeness of statements. If the Council does not think that is important, we should discuss that further. 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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 4:49 AMTo: Gomes, Chuck; robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Milton Mueller; Liz WilliamsSubject: RE: [gtld-council] NCUC stmt on new gtld policy recommendationsChuck,a friendly remark to say I´m not sure about the reason why you need to know this, nor am I clear in what capacity you´re asking. What I can tell you, however, is that generally individual members of our constituency, including the reps on the council, may take the lead in drafting inputs, then seek for the constituents amendments and/or support. And I can assure you that this impact statement has generated more expressions of interest and support from our constituency members than some of our draft inputs to the PDP itself. As a NCUC rep on the council, I figure I can only surrender to such surge of participation and approval that Robin has managed to gather on this statement.Please, also note that a constituecy like NCUC (maybe also theBusiness´) can only be less homogeneous than one like RyC or Registrars´, since we don´t represent a unique sector of activities in this grouping as the registries or registrars.This makes our statements sometimes broader or complex.I´d advise that you take it as the responsibility of NCUC as a whole to endorse and put forward the current statement as its impact statement for the PDP on new gTLDs.Regards,Mawaki--- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Thanks Robin. I in no way meant to imply that onlyfinancial impactsshould be considered. The RyC Impact Statement includedfinancial andnon-financial impacts and I believe that the statement inthe Bylawsdevelopmentasks for both.How many non-commercial organizations were involved in theentity toof the impact statement? Chuck Gomes"This message is intended for the use of the individual orwhich it is addressed, and may contain information that isprivileged,prohibited.confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Anyunauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictlyIf you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."-----Original Message-----From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 5:30 PMTo: Gomes, Chuck Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Milton Mueller; LizWilliamsSubject: Re: [gtld-council] NCUC stmt on new gtld policy recommendationsmakeHi Chuck,Yes, this is NCUC's impact statement on how the recommendations will affect our members.Since we are the 'non-commercial' constituency, it wouldlittle sense for us to restrict our comments to only financial impacts on our constituency.each of theThanks, Robin Gomes, Chuck wrote:Robin, Is this the Impact Statement that Liz had requested froman impactdocument, but atconstituencies?I confess that I have not had time to read the entirefirst glance it looks more like an opinion statement thanimportant andstatement. Certainly, the opinions of the NCUC areeachshould be considered in the final deliberations of theCouncil on thereport that will be sent to the Board, but unless I ammisunderstandingsomething, the purpose of impact statements is different:Annex A ofthe ICANN Bylaws, Section 11.c, says that the Final Reportto the Boardmust include "An analysis of how the issue would affectcan performconstituency, including any financial impact on theconstituency". Ipresume that Liz needs the impact statements so that sheIthat analysis for the Council. Liz - please correct me ifam wrongentity toon this. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual orlaw. Anywhich it is addressed, and may contain information that isprivileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicablesenderunauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictlyprohibited.If you have received this message in error, please notifyimmediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."-----Original Message-----From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf OfRobin GrossSent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:56 PM To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Milton Mueller; Liz Williams Subject: [gtld-council] NCUC stmt on new gtld policyrecommendationsNCUC Statement on PDP-Dec05:T-JUNE2007.htmorT-JUNE2007.pdfThanks, Robin