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

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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 AM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Milton Mueller; Liz Williams
> > Subject: RE: [gtld-council] NCUC stmt on new gtld policy 
> > recommendations
> > Chuck,
> >
> > 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 the
> > Business´) 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 only 
> > >      
> > financial impacts 
> >    
> >
> > > should be considered.  The RyC Impact Statement included 
> > >      
> > financial and 
> >    
> >
> > > non-financial impacts and I believe that the statement in 
> > >      
> > the Bylaws 
> >    
> >
> > > asks for both.
> > >
> > > How many non-commercial organizations were involved in the 
> > >      
> > development 
> >    
> >
> > > of the impact statement?
> > >
> > > 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: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 5:30 PM
> > > > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > > > Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Milton Mueller; Liz
> > > >        
> > > Williams
> > >      
> > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [gtld-council] NCUC stmt on new gtld policy 
> > > > recommendations
> > > > Hi Chuck,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, this is NCUC's impact statement on how the 
> > > > recommendations will affect our members. 
> > > >
> > > > Since we are the 'non-commercial' constituency, it would
> > > >        
> > > make 
> > >      
> > >
> > > > little sense for us to restrict our comments to only 
> > > > financial impacts on our constituency.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Robin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   
> > > > > >
> > > > > >            
> > > > >
> > > > >          
> > > >        
> > >      
>