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

Thu Mar 24 11:49:49 UTC 2016

Dear All,

I believe all that is being suggested is that NPOC Policy strategy is
involvement in the whole cycle, not just the end and that by only
commenting at the end, we are not fully engaged in the policy process. The
suggestion is to participate in the PDP work and CWGs during the entire
process -  from the beginning to the end. It is a very relevant point, as
we need to increase our participation in the is process now.

As NPOC Excom, I don't agree that we tell people when to become involved,
our responsibility is to inform them and enable them to comment, and become
involved in the ongoing work.

We have heard on many occasions that NPOC has not adequately participated
in the policy process, and we have discussed some ways of increasing
comments throughout the process.  Let's take this and do something about
it.  It is our responsibility, and relevance to the ICANN process.We have
an opportunity to begin the work that is expected of us and that is to
provide the ICANN process with policy comments and statements.

Joan Kerr

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> Rudi,
>
> I read the NPOC mission statement as including an ability of member
> organizations to engage in the development of, *and to comment on*,
> proposed ICANN policy *at all stages* of development.
> Clearly I am in the minority in thinking that information about comment
> periods is important to disseminate.
> If the NPOC community takes this to mean that we will not inform NPOC
> member organizations of the ICANN calls for comments, then that will be the
> policy for now.
> The Policy Committee will leave it up to members to track, and respond to,
> those comment request announcements by ICANN on their own initiative.
>
> After the election the new Policy Committee might want to address how it
> sees its work agenda within the NPOC mission.
>
> Sam L.
>
>
> *On 23/03/2016 3:31 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote:*
>
> *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)
> <http://www.npoc.org>www.npoc.org
>
> <rudi.vansnick at 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> "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   Skype: slanfranco
> blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20160324/85551590/attachment.html>