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

[Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.]

Folks,

as far as agendas are concerned, here is my present work agenda in ICANN 
and I want to make it public so as to respond to Sam´s suggestion I 
have a hidden one:

1. Our chapter is and At large structure in ICANN. We are deeply 
committed to the Marrakech agreement to revise our structure and even 
rewrite our internal by laws so as to reflect the diversity of the LAC 
area with the support of ICANN over the next fiscal year (4 languages 
and many cultures).
2. I´m a Non Comm Non Voting member of the GNSO Council until October 
this year. I won’t participate in an extension request for this role.
3. From my previous participation in the GAC I have been a member of the 
GAC - GNSO group that has developed different ideas to get both groups 
closer, like early engagement, quick look mechanisms, liaison figure, 
etc.
4. I´m one of the 2 GNSO Co-Chairs of the CWG ccNSO-GNSO on the use of 
country and territory names
5. I got endorsed by the GNSO to be a member of the CCT Review Team and 
elected by the CEO and the GAC Chair
6. As the Chair of the GNSO reminded GNSO endorsed CCT members to keep 
the GNSO informed, I volunteered to the role of liaison between CCT 
Review - PDP on subsequent rounds
7. I have been liaison to the CWG on IG, but as I have informed the GNSO 
leadership in Marrakech, the CWG IG can´t be considered a policy 
oriented CWG under the present definition and we should reconsider the 
liaison role altogether.
8. I consider NPCO role to be a full and respected member in the GNSO 
policy work, with all the duty implications that it means. If some 
people have only time for comment periods only I think there is a lot of 
space for that in Advisory committees.

 From my personal perspective I have no doubt that the agenda of Mr. Sam 
is as open as he has stated it in his official communication. I would 
never think that he is hidding part of NPOC agenda, which should be 
mainly geared to policy development.


Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 23 Mar 2016, at 12:17, Sam Lanfranco wrote:

> 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 //
>>> ///
>>> _