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)
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@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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss