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

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

I seem to be failing miserably in making my points.  I have absolutely no 
problem with including non-financial impacts and in fact think they should be 
included.  If you look at the RyC impact statement, you will see that we 
organized our comments into two sections: 1) General Impact on the RyC and 2) 
Financial Impact on the RyC; then we commented on a few specific 
recommendations that we believe could have impact some of which would be 
non-financial.  The fact that the Bylaws specifically calls out financial 
impact does not in my opinion limit non-financial impact, but maybe as Robin 
suggests this should be made clearer in future iterations of the PDP.  As 
Philip suggested, it might help us to work toward some consistency in this 
regard but that should in no ways restrict input to only financial impact.

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: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:27 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Mawaki Chango; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Milton 
> Mueller; Liz Williams
> Subject: 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 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>            
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>
> >>>>>          
> >>>>>
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >
> >  
> >
> 
>