<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><small>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 <b>AND</b>,
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Sam L, NPOC Policy Committee<br>
<br>
<font color="#663366">On 23/03/2016 1:28 PM, Carlos Raúl
Gutiérrez G. wrote:<br>
</font></small></div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DD89FF47-2B01-497F-9BE9-E9BF6373F8D1@isoc-cr.org"
type="cite"><font color="#663366"><small>Dear Sam,
<br>
<br>
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:
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
Best regards
<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
<br>
Chair
<br>
ISOC Costa Rica Chapter
<br>
+506 8837 7176
<br>
Skype: carlos.raulg
<br>
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
</small></font><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DD89FF47-2B01-497F-9BE9-E9BF6373F8D1@isoc-cr.org"
type="cite"><font color="#990000"><small><i>On 23 Mar 2016, at
10:34, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
</i><i><br>
</i><i>
</i><i><br>
</i></small></font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font color="#990000"><small><i>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:
</i><i><br>
</i><i>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>·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.
</i><i><br>
</i><i>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>·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.
</i><i><br>
</i><i>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>This note is about progress on the first goal.
</i><i><br>
</i><i>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>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.
</i><i><br>
</i><i>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>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.
</i><i><br>
</i><i>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>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.
</i><i><br>
</i><i>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>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.
</i><i><br>
</i><i>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>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.
</i><i><br>
</i><i>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>Sam Lanfranco, Chair,
</i><i><br>
</i><i>
</i><i><br>
</i><i>NPOC Policy Committee
</i><i><br>
</i><i>
</i></small></font><br>
_<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>