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

[James Njoroge Gitau <kaswesha@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi! Colleagues and good members.


      Is there conflict in the leadership? It won’t be a very good picture
nor will it sound any good. Kindly solve the issue amicably.



Concerned;


James Njoroge.


On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Hughes, Debra Y. <
Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  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*****
>
>  ****
>
> *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]****
>
> 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]
> http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm,
> paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c.****
>
> ** **
>



-- 
*Cell-Phone +254 722 212171 or +254 721 274273*

*You can earn money by involving yourself with a Paid Survey just click on
the following link below register start your survey to start earning
forthwith*; http://Surveys-Faq.com?ref=2658128

Before printing this mail make sure it is completely necessary. THE
ENVIRONMENT IS EVERY ONE'S BUSINESS.