[Npoc-discuss] Dealing with Not-for-Profit and Civil Society Internet Policy Concerns

[Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.]

Dear Sam,

Thank you for your note. It brings me back to our meeting in Marrakech 
where you presented your own definition that NPOC role is advisory in 
nature, and only at the last moment of comment periods. I couldn´t 
agree less. It would make this group rather unattractive to new members 
and ineffective as a constituency. It does not serve Rudi`s great effort 
in the recent PDPs on Translation and Transliteration either. And the 
advantage of having a written exchange is that you can not keep 
interrupting me arguing that I don`t understand (you). So here is my 
written position on your suggestions:

I can not agree that the NPOC, which is a constituency within the GNSO 
council, asumes that we have no time&resources to get involved 
throughout the PDPs. This is not consistent with the duties of being 
part of the GNSO in my personal view as Councillor. If the whole NPOC 
would agree with your position that this should be the case, there is no 
role for the NPOC within the NCPH in my view and ICANN resources are not 
well allocated. This could be in my view a serious transparency issue, 
financing a constituency that by your standards feels it has no moral 
duty to participate in the PDP work from the beginning to the end. By 
BEGINNING I mean all previous work to the initiation of a PDP, like 
CWGs. And by END I mean implementation work of approved policies. The 
whole policy cycle.

If the NPOC has become too thin to be a full and active member of the 
NCPH, then its “comment period” work on Not-for-Profit and Civil 
Society Internet Policy Concerns should be better delegated to ALAC, 
which is supposed to be advisory only and well adjusted to the comment 
periods. Moreover, ALAC at least guarantees fair geographic 
representation which is far from guaranteed in NPOC. As an 
organisational member of NPOC, ISOC Costa Rica Chapter wants a clear and 
definite discussion of NPOC as a  whole on this issue, because we may 
have to consider withdrawing our membership and participation in this 
constituency and limit our participation in ICANN as an At Large 
Structure only.

At this crucial times of defining Accountability and Transparency 
standards for the community as a whole, I want an open and transparent 
discussion on your suggestions to be a full member of the Council, but 
do only half of the work expected from any other GNSO constituency.

Best regards


Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Chair
ISOC Costa Rica Chapter
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 23 Mar 2016, at 10:34, Sam Lanfranco wrote:

> This is a brief note from the NPOC Policy Committee. As a non-profit 
> organization/civil society (NPO/CS) constituency group within ICANN, 
> NPOC has two goals:
>
> ·As part of ICANN’s multistakeholder governance mandate, it is 
> important that NPOC increase the voice of the NPO/CC constituency in 
> the policies of ICANN as they affect the stability and security of the 
> global Domain Names System (DNS) and the legitimacy of the 
> multistakeholder model in Internet governance.
>
>
> ·It is also important that NPOC assist the NPO/CC constituency with 
> its awareness and understanding of the impacts of ICANN and Internet 
> governance polices on the ability of NPO/CC organizations to 
> effectively pursue their own missions and visions.
>
> This note is about progress on the first goal.
>
> ICANN multistakeholder policy making is “bottom up”. When a policy 
> issue arises the ICANN process strikes a multistakeholder chartering 
> group to develop terms of reference for a multistakeholder Policy 
> Development Process Working Group which works up a consensus policy 
> proposal to be considered by the ICANN multistakeholder community.
>
> While stakeholders, including NPOC members, are urged to get involved 
> early in the policy development, it is recognized that NPO/CC 
> stakeholder organizations have limited resources and volunteer time to 
> be deeply involved in issues of Internet governance.
>
> Within ICANN there is however one last opportunity to comment on 
> policy proposals, one which would demand little time from NPOC 
> members, and that is the final “Comments Period”, the last review 
> stage before a policy proposal is finalized, to be approved by 
> consensus and sent to the ICANN board for implementation.
>
> To assist NPO/CC engagement the NPOC Policy Committee will produce 
> very brief “NPOC Notice of Call for Comment” postings here. 
> Postings that contain a link to the comments page, the deadline for 
> comments, and a sentence or two linking the policy to NPO/CS 
> self-interests.
>
> Please take the time to comment when you can, and feel free to also 
> use this forum <npoc-discuss> if you have questions or wish to raise 
> issues around policy proposals. You are of course urged and welcome to 
> get involved in the policy process as early as possible. This is an 
> important step in insuring NPO/CS engagement in Internet policy.
>
> Sam Lanfranco, Chair,
>
> NPOC Policy Committee
>
> _______________________________________________
> Npoc-discuss mailing list
> Npoc-discuss at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss