A Different Approach to NPOC Policy Committee Chair Coordinator

by Carlos Dionisio AGUIRRE (Our Vision)

Please take five minutes to read this short text, and feel free to share your thaughts if you consider that. thanks

Introduction:

I appreciate and welcome the ideas and energy reflected in the other candidate’s proposal. New perspectives and motivation are important for keeping NPOC active and evolving.

At the same time, I believe the next phase for NPOC requires more than enthusiasm alone. It requires experience navigating ICANN policy processes, building consensus across diverse stakeholders, coordinating contributions under tight timelines, and translating community priorities into concrete outcomes.

 

1  Our Commitments for a Stronger NPOC .

Over the next 12 months, NPOC must move from reactive to anticipatory.  Our vision is a Policy Committee that flags priority issues at the PDP scoping stage, not at the public comment deadline. That means tighter integration with NCSG, measurable member output, and positions that carry the operational realities of not-for-profits directly into ICANN processes.

To get there I will implement four practical systems:

●           Policy Horizon Calendar: A rolling 6-12 month tracker of ICANN workstreams, Board resolutions, and review team milestones, with RACI tags and early warning flags.

●           Penholder Protocol: Identify drafting leads and subject-matter reviewers before the first draft is posted, reducing last-minute bottlenecks and improving substance.

●           Briefing-to-Comment Pipeline: 1-page issue briefs published within 7 days of a proceeding opening. Briefs frame the non-commercial equities, list impacted rights, and propose framing questions for members.

●           Internal SLA Framework: Clear deadlines for member input, redline circulation, and consensus calls. We will publish our workflow and track adherence, because transparency requires process, not just intent.

NPOC’s legitimacy rests on substantive, evidence-based contributions. Anticipation gives us time for consultation, coalition building, and quality drafting.

2. Turning Policy into Action: Experience and Leadership Approach

I have coordinated, and chaired in my extense 21 years experience  many working  groups, and I know what we need to have a truly  important place on the ncsg discussions .

My method is structured consensus building. First, map the decision space: what is policy vs implementation, what is within ICANN’s remit, what are the legal and human rights constraints. Second, surface member equities through targeted outreach, especially from underrepresented regions and org types. Third, draft to show the reasoning chain: identify where we align, where trade-offs exist, and why our position upholds non-commercial principles without becoming absolutist. Consensus holds when people see their input reflected and understand why choices were made.

I also close the loop. When comments need clarification, I reach out directly to contributors. Respect is operational: timely replies, visible edits, and credit where due.

3.Policy Areas that Matter to Not-for-Profits

 

 

 Five workstreams will dominate the next year and demand NPOC capacity:

Issue	Non-commercial Risk	NPOC Lever
DNS Abuse	Overbroad mitigation measures that expand ICANN’s remit, create liability for registrars, or enable content-based takedowns	Push evidence-based definitions, proportionality tests, and clear limits tied to the DNS technical layer
Registration Data & Privacy	Accuracy mandates or access regimes that undermine GDPR and equivalent frameworks, exposing at-risk groups	Defend purpose limitation, data minimization, and due process safeguards in the Registration Data Policy and WHOIS Disclosure System
Next Round of New gTLDs	Applicant Support criteria, string confusion rules, and Public Interest Commitments that exclude small, mission-driven applicants	Shape evaluation scoring, fee structures, and objection standards to lower participation barriers for not-for-profits
ICANN Accountability	Board deference to contracted parties or erosion of ATRT/WS2 recommendations	Track implementation of bylaws commitments, intervene in IFR/OPR reviews, and demand measurable outcomes
AI & Automation in DNS Ops	Algorithmic decision-making in compliance, auctions, or contention sets without transparency or appeal paths	Require human-in-the-loop, impact assessments, and appeals before deployment in policy-implicating systems

 

Priority goes to issues where policy design could impose structural costs on not-for-profits or chill rights to privacy, expression, association, and due process.

4. Opening the Door to New Contributors

Policy participation fails when the on-ramp is a 200-page PDF. We will lower barriers without lowering standards.

The approach:

●           Tiered Participation: Not everyone must author. Members can flag regional impact, provide use cases, join a 30-minute “red team” review, or translate key points.

●           Micro-Briefings: 5-minute Loom videos or 1-pagers that explain the issue, the ask, and the deadline. We pair each with a “why this matters to not-for-profits” section.

●           Drafting Pods: Small groups of 2-3 with a mentor lead. New members learn by editing a section, not by staring at a blank doc.

●           Office Hours: Biweekly 30-minute slots to ask “dumb” questions safely. Institutional knowledge transfers best in low-stakes settings.

●           Credit and Visibility: Public acknowledgment of contributors in final submissions. Participation compounds when people see their work matter.

My role as Chair Coordinator is to architect the ladder, not to expect everyone to jump to the top rung.

5. Making NPOC More Visible, More Inclusive, More Effective

Speed and participation are not opposites if you design for both. The workflow I will enforce:

1.           Intake & Triage: Log every relevant proceeding in the public tracker within 48 hours, tag urgency, and propose a penholder.

2.           Scoping Call: 15-minute kickoff with NCSG counterparts to align positions and divide labor.

3.           Draft v0.1: Circulated by Day 7 with explicit “help wanted” tags on sections needing input.

4.           Structured Feedback: Comment matrix with disposition notes. Every substantive comment gets a response: adopted, modified, or rejected with rationale.

5.           Consensus Check: Lazy consensus with a defined objection window, plus a call if needed. No silent vetoes.

6.           Post-Mortem: After submission, we publish a 3-bullet “what we said, why, and what we learned” note.

This term I opened the policy tracking form to all members. We will continue iterating on tooling, but tools serve process. Preparation is what lets us be fast and inclusive. Documentation is what makes us accountable.

NPOC cannot afford to be a comment factory. We must be a standards body for non-commercial equities in ICANN policy. That requires coordination, technical depth, and the discipline to do the unglamorous work early.

Next year we need all our Organizations working togheter, because is a colective challenge and nobody can be absent on this way to build the best NPOC.

Best Regards.

Carlos Dionisio AGUIRRE 

AGEIA DENSI Intl. Director