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

Wed Mar 23 19:31:24 UTC 2016

Dear Sam,

I do not want to start any debate, just one simple statement : NPOC mission is to elaborate and work on policy related to NGO’s and not-for-profit organizations use of the DNS, as is clearly described in our charter (art 1.2).

The NPOC shall engage the ICANN community on how proposed and existing policies and initiatives uniquely impact not-for-profit and non-governmental organizations and the delivery of their mission-related services. Specific operational concerns include: domain name registration, expansion of the DNS, fraud and abuse, using the DNS to provide and collect information to members and to serve members and communities.  

Thus, somehow Carlos made clear he and his organisation did not see the appropriate work been developed. I do not want to argue on not-understanding, each of us can have an own opinion and that’s fair in a democratic world. I did not feel any refusal of recognition nor understanding by Carlos on the argumentation. Sometimes we are too engaged and forget to use our ears and listen to our members. Lessons taken here for the future.

Dear all,

I want to highlight the importance of our public participation in the policy work, through PDP and non-PDP working groups, by posting our statements and comments to the reports and proposals in the public comments.I have to recognize the importance of NPOC’s voice in the many ongoing policy changes especially those related directly to the stability and safe use of the DNS. Many NGO’s are victims of the abuse of the DNS and need appropriate assistance by elaborating the discussions inside the ICANN community.

As the chair of NPOC, I have to admit we have been quite absent in producing the adequate reactions to ongoing policy development. I strongly encourage all of you to work closely with us and engage where possible in working groups or policy discussions. If you hesitate, if you have any concerns, please call on us, we will assist you, we will mentor you in order to enable the NGO’s voice in the DNS policy changes.

I dare hope you all will understand the difficulties we are engaged in and will join me in looking forward to enable NPOC being THE NGO’s voice in the DNS policy. 

PS : I’m doing well although the brutal facts happened in Brussels. A very close friend is a victim, survived the bombing, heavily injured at his legs, not sure he will be able to walk again … I’ll spent some time tomorrow with him, so will occasionally be online.

Kind regards, 

Rudi Vansnick
Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC)
www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>

rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32

> Op 23 mrt. 2016, om 19:17 heeft Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 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 
>>> 
>>> _
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Npoc-discuss mailing list
> Npoc-discuss at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20160323/a8721609/attachment.html>