[gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23.

Thu Oct 1 06:07:30 UTC 2015

Hi

Thanks for the textual exegesis. I’m ok with food for thought, although I suspect it may lead to indigestion.  But sorry to be dense, having missed the call I’m not clear how we are proceeding with respect to the statement on 23, on which we put in time through an iterative process but then got some dissent.  Could someone give me a step by step here on whether we are hoping for some further process that will lead to consensus, or are instead submitting it just on behalf of the like minded, or what?

Thanks

Bill

> On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
> 
> Thank you very much Sam.  That answers my questions and I believe that the Working Party is on the same page as the NPOC.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: Sam Lanfranco [mailto:sam at lanfranco.net <mailto:sam at lanfranco.net>] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:06 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Rudi Vansnick; gnso-review-dt at icann.org <mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
> Cc: Excom NPOC
> Subject: Re: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23.
>  
> As part of the NPOC ExCom I will respond to Chuck's query with regard to the NPOC statement on the Westlake final GNSO review report. 
> 
> I will relay the sense of our position here, but Rudi and others may wish to add more. 
> NPOC is not suggesting that the GNSO Review be started over, and it of course supports the Working Party process.  
> 
> As a contributor to the phrasing in the document, here is my perspective on the challenges that are ahead for this process. There is a general feeling that the well meaning Westlake people failed to understand much about ICANN and the context in which the GNSO operates, and that this impacted on how they arrived at their recommendations. As a result I would suggest that the Report be treated like yet another submission with regard to the GNSO (albeit an expensive one with some identified flaws in methods used), and that the Report be used as food for thought.
> 
> Working Party implementation guidelines should be based on the importance of issues in their own right and not just because they were flagged by the Report. As well, being listed in the report can bring issues to our attention but in and of itself should not justify their inclusion in implementation guidelines. In my view, to protect the interests of C's and SGs we have to guard against any top down push to use select parts of the Report. I of course support the process whereby suggestions made by the Working Party are considered by the broader GNSO community, and do see that as "bottom-up". 
> 
> Sam L, Chair
> NPOC Policy Committee 
> 
>  On 30/09/2015 1:49 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Rudi,
>  
> Let me add my thanks to that from others for a thoughtful statement.  I do have a few questions though.
>  
> More clarity in terms of what the NPOC means in terms of the following would be helpful:  “return the Review of the GNSO to a bottom up stakeholder decision making process”.  My understanding is that the Working Party will now review the recommendations with the goal of suggesting some implementation guidelines to the GNSO as a whole.  Because the Working Party is fully open and representation is encouraged from all C’s and SGs and others and because any suggestions we make will be considered by the broader GNSO community, would the NPOC consider that process to be “a bottom up stakeholder decision making process”?  Or is the NPOC suggesting that the GNSO Review be started over?
>  
> There are other options of course rather than using the Working Party.  An Implementation Review Team could be formed along the lines of what happens for policy issues.
>  
> I asked these questions of you but I realize that they are really for all of us in the Working Party to consider as we evaluate our next steps.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rudi Vansnick
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 11:32 AM
> To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org <mailto:gnso-review-dt at icann.org>
> Cc: Excom NPOC
> Subject: [gnso-review-dt] NPOC comments, remarks and statement to the GNSO rec 23.
>  
> Dear GNSO review party members,
>  
> NPOC has reviewed the Westlake Governance's Final GNSO Review Report and submits the following comments and observations. 
> 
> First, we wish to set the context for these comments. NPOC consists of and represents non-profit and civil society constituency organizations. NPOC strives to encompass and represent the interests and concerns of that vast constituency of organizations for whom the Internet ecosystem and DNS operational concerns impact on their mission and their work, but for whom their mission and work focus on community development, social justice, human services, etc., and not on the Internet per se. 
> 
> NPOC sees outreach to the constituency to raise awareness and engagement as central to its mission, and as important as bringing constituency organizations into ICANN volunteer work and ICANN policy development and implementation. For a multistakeholder organization to survive and thrive there is need for broad and deep constituency engagement. 
> 
> In NPOC’s review of the Final GNSO Review Report two specific issues stand out. 
> The first concern, shared with other constituencies, is that the methods used to gather and analyze evidence in the report have serious shortcomings. 
> The second is that a number of the conclusions and recommendations lack appreciation of the context within ICANN, lack an adequate evidence base, and are under defined for purposes of implementation.
> However, NPOC does not wish to address specific issues within the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report. To do so would overlook the broader issue of methods used. It also risks offering validation of Report content where validation is not warranted. 
> 
> NPOC has larger concerns with regard to the potential uses of the Report. NPOC would have no issue with the Final GNSO Review Report being treated as a "green paper" and food for thought within the ICANN multistakeholder community. NPOC would have serious reservations about the report being used as "expert" justification for top-down ICANN Board action with regard to the GNSO. That would be an abuse of the ways in which expertise should be incorporated into decision making in what should be a bottom up multistakeholder decision making process. 
> 
> In short, NPOC calls for the Board to treat the Westlake Final GNSO Review Report as food for thought and return the Review of the GNSO to a bottom up stakeholder decision making process. Such a process may take longer, and be a bit less orderly, but it will have greater legitimacy within ICANN’s remit as a multistakeholder organization and produce better results in the long run. 
>  
> Rudi Vansnick
> Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC)
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>  
> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> in an unjust state" -Confucius
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca <mailto:Lanfran at Yorku.ca>   Skype: slanfranco
> blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com <http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com/>
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852

*********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
*********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-dt/attachments/20151001/2da3c977/attachment.html>