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

[Sam Lanfranco]

Carlos, I will not belabor the point that you do not understand this at 
all. I tried to explain the two pronged strategy to you at the meeting 
in Marrakesh and you simply refused to understand it there as well. We 
are pressing for greater not-for-profit and civil society organization 
engagement in the chartering and PDP processes *AND*, in response to 
organizational members whose focus is pressing social issues and not 
primarily Internet governance, suggesting an additional initial way to 
get involved. I am not pleased by your personal attacks either. They 
have no place in a consensus driven governance process. One might 
suspect that there is an additional hidden agenda there.

You have made your points here and demonstrated that you miss understand 
both the intention and the effort. You go further and make assertions 
that are wildly off the mark. I would urge you to consult with your 
colleagues on this. I have never made suggestions about being a full 
member of the Council, I prefer to spend most of my time in the trenches 
working with those who wish to have a stronger voice in the matters that 
affect their lives on this fragile planet.

If others have similar concerns to yours I ask them to speak up. For 
some reason you are reading one-half of the message and ignoring the 
other half. You have made you point. I trust that you will leave it to 
others to assess the relative merits of your assertions, and the 
relative merits of my efforts, and that both of us will be guided 
accordingly by the measured voices of others. If my efforts are 
misguided I will stop and step back. I trust that you are committed to 
doing the same.

Sam L, NPOC Policy Committee

On 23/03/2016 1:28 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. wrote:
> 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 //
>> ///
>> _

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20160323/3e3c0e72/attachment.html>