<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[npoc-voice] RE: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote
- To: "'Robin Gross'" <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [npoc-voice] RE: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote
- From: "Hughes, Debra Y." <Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:28:13 +0000
Robin,
I sent the email because I received the attached rejection notices. Thanks for
adding my address.
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: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 5:12 PM
To: Hughes, Debra Y.
Cc: Alain Berranger; npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx; NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote
Not sure why you think you aren't the list. You are and just posted to it.
Robin
On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Hughes, Debra Y. wrote:
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<mailto:Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Hughes, Debra Y.
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:53 PM
To: 'Robin Gross';
NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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.
--- Begin Message ---
- To: <Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Rejected posting to NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- From: "Syracuse University LISTSERV Server (16.0)" <LISTSERV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:26:20 -0400
You are not authorized to send mail to the NCSG-DISCUSS list from your
Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx account. You might be authorized to post to the list
from another account, or perhaps when using another mail program configured to
use a different email address. However, LISTSERV has no way to associate this
other account or address with yours. If you need assistance or if you have any
questions regarding the policy of the NCSG-DISCUSS list, please contact the
list owners at NCSG-DISCUSS-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
--- Begin Message ---
- To: 'Robin Gross' <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Brenden Kuerbis <bkuerbis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Rejected posting to NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- From: "Hughes, Debra Y." <Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:26:10 +0000
Thanks!
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: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 5:25 PM
To: Brenden Kuerbis
Cc: Hughes, Debra Y.; NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Fwd: Rejected posting to NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Brenden,
Debbie wants her new email address to be added to the NCSG mailing list. Could
you do that please?
Thanks,
Robin
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Hughes, Debra Y."
<Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: March 14, 2012 2:00:20 PM PDT
To: "'NCSG-DISCUSS-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.'"
<NCSG-DISCUSS-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: 'Robin Gross' <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 'Alain
Berranger' <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: FW: Rejected posting to
NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Robin,
I request to be added to the NCSG list using the email
Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>.
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<mailto:Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
-----Original Message-----
From: Syracuse University LISTSERV Server (16.0)
[mailto:LISTSERV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:53 PM
To: Hughes, Debra Y.
Subject: Rejected posting to NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You are not authorized to send mail to the NCSG-DISCUSS list from your
Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx account. You might be authorized to post to the list
from another account, or perhaps when using another mail program configured to
use a different email address. However, LISTSERV has no way to associate this
other account or address with yours. If you need assistance or if you have any
questions regarding the policy of the NCSG-DISCUSS list, please contact the
list owners at NCSG-DISCUSS-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
--- End Message ---
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: <Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Rejected posting to NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- From: "Syracuse University LISTSERV Server (16.0)" <LISTSERV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:53:22 -0400
You are not authorized to send mail to the NCSG-DISCUSS list from your
Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx account. You might be authorized to post to the list
from another account, or perhaps when using another mail program configured to
use a different email address. However, LISTSERV has no way to associate this
other account or address with yours. If you need assistance or if you have any
questions regarding the policy of the NCSG-DISCUSS list, please contact the
list owners at NCSG-DISCUSS-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
--- Begin Message ---
- To: 'Robin Gross' <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote
- From: "Hughes, Debra Y." <Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:53:08 +0000
Robin,
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.
--- End Message ---
--- End Message ---
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|