[npoc-voice] FW: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote

["Hughes, Debra Y." <Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robin,

Since I appear to have been removed from the NCSG/NCUC list, can you please 
post to the list.  I remain the  representative for American Red Cross within 
the NPOC and NCSG.

Thanks,
Debbie

Debra Y. Hughes
Senior Counsel

American Red Cross
2025 E Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
202.303.5356 (p)
202.303.0143 (f)
Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx

From: Hughes, Debra Y.
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:53 PM
To: 'Robin Gross'; NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote


Robin,

Can you please clarify the precise results of the vote by NCSG on this decision 
for deferral, including whether there was any opposition to this decision by 
any NCSG constituency?

Thanks,
Debbie


Debra Y. Hughes
Senior Counsel

American Red Cross
2025 E Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
202.303.5356 (p)
202.303.0143 (f)
Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin 
Gross
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:51 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote

NCSG finds it impossible to bypass ICANN's bottom-up policy development process 
in this way.  At a time when multi-stakeholder processes on the Internet are 
being challenged, this proposal is both questionable on the merits, and 
contrary to ICANN's processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage 
but to defer the vote at least until the public comment period is closed.
Here are the reasons for our deferral.
One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public comment 
period, which allows public engagement and permits those affected by policies 
to express their views. Public comments constitute a quintessential part of 
iCANN's ecosystem.  How can ICANN depend on public comments when it makes a 
decision before they have all been received? The council should not hold a vote 
on something as important as the implicit creation of a new form of reserved 
names, especially one that singles out some international organisations for 
special consideration while ignoring others without full comment. The critical 
importance of public comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve 
Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said:
"In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has closed, 
ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of Commitments, to 
employ "responsive consultation procedures that provide detailed explanations 
of the basis for decisions, including how comments have influenced the 
development of policy consideration," and to "continually assess[] and 
improv[e] the processes by which ICANN receives public input (including 
adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale thereof)." 
[1]<x-msg://784/#_ftn1>
We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder group - 
the IPC.
The community should take the necessary time to hear all the views on this 
issue and examine other proposals, such as those from Portugal earlier this 
week as well as the proposal from the Not-for-profit Operations Constituency 
that are intended to create a more fair and less arbitrary standard for 
reserved names.
The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue and 
needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can properly decide 
how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote.
________________________________
[1]<x-msg://784/#_ftnref1> 
http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm, 
paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c.