[npoc-voice] Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012

[Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

Let see if your assumption is correct or if it was more a case that the
language discussed in blending the 2 motions never considered the NPOC
"Whereas clause" of the NCSG motion. They were really not competing motions
but friendly motions - they just had to be blended... The larger outcome is
that by excluding INGOs and considering only IGOs, the resolution will
create a huge problem...

As it stands the resolution excludes INGOs (important members for
NPOC)...but I defer to your experience that says that can be reconsidered
in the PDP process. If that is true, fine... strange ways for a resolution,
but still fine...

The inter-SG relationships require mutual respect, which includes diligent
consideration of specific proposals or requests by all involved.  For
instance, I recall you intervened in the early NCSG motion language when
you asked me if I was OK with removing the ILP reference in the resolution
proper and keep it only in a "Whereas" paragraph, and I agreed.... but that
was obviously a last stand or else ILP would fall off the radar, which is
what has happened.

Alain



On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> I am assuming the language its what the g-council members could agree on
> as there were two competing motions.
> Also I am sure the issues you want considered in the issues report will
> be. otherwise that is something that can be commend on during the review.
>
> I don't understand the basis for reproach.  We are just at the start of
> the PDP process - plenty of time to get everything considered.
>
> Avri
>
> Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Colleagues,
> >
> >I just read the last resolution past today - see below. I must state my
> >utter disappointment, for 3 reasons:
> >
> >First at the Stakeholders' Group level, it was agreed in NCSG-PC
> >exchanges
> >that the concept of "International Legal Personality" flushed out by
> >NPOC
> >in San José, was valuable and would be part of a "whereas" clause of
> >our
> >motion or any friendly motion supported by NCSG GNSO Councillors. I
> >note
> >with regret that this was not respected.
> >
> >Second, the resolution deals only with  IGOs (International
> >Governmental
> >Organizations). It exclude International Non-Governmental Organizations
> >(INGOs), a major current and future constituency of NPOC. The Red Cross
> >for
> >instance is not an IGO, it is an INGO with "International Legal
> >Personality". In a multi-stakeholder organization like ICANN, the place
> >and
> >voice of civil society must be equal to that of governments,
> >individuals
> >and private sector.  Not including INGOs in this resolution is not
> >adhering
> >to that principle and places civil society as "last amongst equals".
> >Including only IGOs places Governments as "first amongst equals".
> >
> >Finally, it is also very disappointing that after a long period of
> >systematic complaints by NCUC members about the lack of participation
> >in
> >policy debate by NPOC members, that the very first substantive proposal
> >by
> >NPOC since Dakar is brushed aside. I wrote at least two recent emails
> >to
> >indicate the NPOC position was clear and strong about insertion of the
> >concept of "ILP" in a "Whereas" paragraph. So much for NCUC-NPOC
> >agreement
> >of collaboration agreed to in San José. In retrospect, with all GNSO
> >Councillors for NCSG coming from NCUC, it was naive of me to assume and
> >trust that NPOC's relatively well balanced suggestion would not be
> >eroded
> >little by little until it was totally diluted out in the statement:
> >*"And
> >whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to
> >such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica".
> >*I
> >know of only one criteria proposal suggested in Costa Rica: the use of
> >the
> >International Legal Personality test proposed by NPOC. The Portugal
> >representative statement at the GAC meeting alluded possibly to this
> >generic concept but was not as carefully and sharply worded as the NPOC
> >proposal. Very disappointing and quite a missed opportunity to work
> >together... It only means that we need to get NPOC members elected to
> >GNSO
> >positions. Unfortunatley, with the NCSG voting landscape as it now
> >stands,
> >this is very unlikely for a long long time!
> >
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
> >Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM
> >Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012
> >To: liaison6c <liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> >** **
> >
> >Dear All,****
> >
> >** **
> >
> >The GNSO Council passed the following resolutions at the meeting
> >today, 12 April  2012.****
> >
> >A recording of the meeting is available at:****
> >
> >http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120412-en.mp3
> >
> >Please let me know if you have any questions.****
> >
> >** **
> >
> >Thank you.****
> >
> >Kind regards,****
> >
> >** **
> >
> >Glen****
> >
> >** **
> >
> >** **
> >
> >*1. Motion to delay the ‘thick’ Whois Policy Development Process*****
> >
> >Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois at
> >its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see
> >http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);****
> >
> >Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was prepared by
> >staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see
> >http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);****
> >
> >Whereas a Final Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was published on 2
> >February 2012 (see
> >
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);****
> >
> >Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council
> >proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of
> >the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN
> >has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN
> >policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;****
> >
> >Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its
> >meeting of 14 March 2012 (see
> >http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);****
> >
> >Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, also taking into account
> >the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced
> >support for a delay in the start of the PDP until contract
> >negotiations on the .com agreement are complete, as the results of
> >that negotiation may determine whether a PDP on ‘thick’ Whois is still
> >required.****
> >
> >THEREFORE BE IT:****
> >
> >Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a
> >charter) of the ‘thick’ Whois PDP will be delayed until the .com
> >negotiations have been completed by 30 November 2012.****
> >
> >Motion to delay the ‘thick’ Whois Policy Development Process****
> >
> >Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois at
> >its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see
> >http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);****
> >
> >Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was prepared by
> >staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see
> >http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);****
> >
> >Whereas a Final Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was published on 2
> >February 2012 (see
> >
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);****
> >
> >Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council
> >proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of
> >the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN
> >has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN
> >policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;****
> >
> >Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its
> >meeting of 14 March 2012 (see
> >http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);****
> >
> >Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the
> >current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced
> >support for a delay in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and
> >GNSO resources are available to deal with this. ****
> >
> >THEREFORE BE IT:****
> >
> >Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a
> >charter) of the ‘thick’ Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO
> >Council meeting after 30 November 2012.****
> >
> >** **
> >
> >*Motion to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and
> >acronyms of IGOs*****
> >
> >Whereas on September 7, 2007 the GNSO Council approved by
> >supermajority vote a PDP on new gTLDs with a number of
> >recommendations, none of which afforded special protection to specific
> >applicants;****
> >
> >Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections
> >for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the
> >GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red
> >Crescent (RC) Drafting Team;****
> >
> >Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were
> >required on associated policies relating to protections for certain
> >international organizations at the second level, if any;****
> >
> >Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that
> >included requests from international governmental organizations
> >requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for
> >the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program;****
> >
> >And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective
> >rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in
> >Costa Rica.****
> >
> >Now therefore be it resolved,****
> >
> >The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility
> >of a PDP that covers the following issues:****
> >
> >- Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special
> >protection at the top and second level, if any; and****
> >
> >- Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and
> >second level.****
> >
> >** **
> >
> >Glen de Saint Géry****
> >
> >GNSO Secretariat****
> >
> >gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx****
> >
> >http://gnso.icann.org****
> >
> >** **
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> >Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
> >http://www.ceci.ca<
> http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
> >Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
> >www.schulich.yorku.ca
> >Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation,
> >www.gkpfoundation.org
> >NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
> >Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> >O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> >Skype: alain.berranger
> >_______________________________________________
> >PC-NCSG mailing list
> >PC-NCSG@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger