Colleagues,
I just read the last resolution past today - see below. I must state my utter disappointment, for 3 reasons:
First at the Stakeholders' Group level, it was agreed in NCSG-PC exchanges that the concept of "International Legal Personality" flushed out by NPOC in San José, was valuable and would be part of a "whereas" clause of our motion or any friendly motion supported by NCSG GNSO Councillors. I note with regret that this was not respected.
Second, the resolution deals only with IGOs (International Governmental Organizations). It exclude International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs), a major current and future constituency of NPOC. The Red Cross for instance is not an IGO, it is an INGO with "International Legal Personality". In a multi-stakeholder organization like ICANN, the place and voice of civil society must be equal to that of governments, individuals and private sector. Not including INGOs in this resolution is not adhering to that principle and places civil society as "last amongst equals". Including only IGOs places Governments as "first amongst equals".
Finally, it is also very disappointing that after a long period of systematic complaints by NCUC members about the lack of participation in policy debate by NPOC members, that the very first substantive proposal by NPOC since Dakar is brushed aside. I wrote at least two recent emails to indicate the NPOC position was clear and strong about insertion of the concept of "ILP" in a "Whereas" paragraph. So much for NCUC-NPOC agreement of collaboration agreed to in San José. In retrospect, with all GNSO Councillors for NCSG coming from NCUC, it was naive of me to assume and trust that NPOC's relatively well balanced suggestion would not be eroded little by little until it was totally diluted out in the statement: *"And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica". *I know of only one criteria proposal suggested in Costa Rica: the use of the International Legal Personality test proposed by NPOC. The Portugal representative statement at the GAC meeting alluded possibly to this generic concept but was not as carefully and sharply worded as the NPOC proposal. Very disappointing and quite a missed opportunity to work together...
It only means that we need to get NPOC members elected to GNSO positions. Unfortunatley, with the NCSG voting landscape as it now stands, this is very unlikely for a long long time!
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, http://www.schulich.yorku.ca
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, http://www.gkpfoundation.org
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, http://www.chasquinet.org
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012 To: liaison6c <liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Dear All,
The GNSO Council passed the following resolutions at the meeting today, 12 April 2012. A recording of the meeting is available at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120412-en.mp3 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen
1. Motion to delay the ‘thick’ Whois Policy Development Process
Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was prepared by staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm); Whereas a Final Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf); Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;**** Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its meeting of 14 March 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1); Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, also taking into account the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced support for a delay in the start of the PDP until contract negotiations on the .com agreement are complete, as the results of that negotiation may determine whether a PDP on ‘thick’ Whois is still required. THEREFORE BE IT: Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a charter) of the ‘thick’ Whois PDP will be delayed until the .com negotiations have been completed by 30 November 2012.
2. Motion to delay the ‘thick’ Whois Policy Development Process
Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was prepared by staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm); Whereas a Final Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf); Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO; Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its meeting of 14 March 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1); Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced support for a delay in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and GNSO resources are available to deal with this. THEREFORE BE IT: Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a charter) of the ‘thick’ Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO Council meeting after 30 November 2012.
3. Motion to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs
Whereas on September 7, 2007 the GNSO Council approved by supermajority vote a PDP on new gTLDs with a number of recommendations, none of which afforded special protection to specific applicants; Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC) Drafting Team; Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were required on associated policies relating to protections for certain international organizations at the second level, if any; Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that included requests from international governmental organizations requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program; And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica. Now therefore be it resolved, The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, if any; and - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level.
5 Comments
Ken Bour
On Apr 12, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
I am assuming the language its what the g-council members could agree on as there were two competing motions. Also I am sure the issues you want considered in the issues report will be. otherwise that is something that can be commend on during the review.
I don't understand the basis for reproach. We are just at the start of the PDP process - plenty of time to get everything considered.
Avri
Ken Bour
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:01 PM, William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx> wrote:
Other stakeholder groups were leery about the motion and many people voted against. The registries ultimately agreed to support the motion but first wanted the mention of "International Legal Personality" dropped on the grounds that nobody really knew what it meant and what its inclusion might imply. Mary valiantly tried to propose several formulations for retaining its inclusion on the grounds that NPOC cared about it and had shared a URL to an academic article that mentions it, but not so astonishingly our business colleagues were not moved by that rationale. It's just not how things work, and to berate councilors without understanding this is naive and arrogant. Such utter disappointment can sometimes be avoided in the future by undertaking such things as outreach and persuasion. One has to make a case for a new idea, in a clear way, in a place people see, and then work the other stakeholder groups and do some horse trading and consensus building on language. If people don't know what ILP would mean in this context, that's on you, Alain. "Because NPOC wants it" is not enough.
Ken Bour
Bill, I'm glad you are feeling better...
Your testimony is very useful to my comprehension - thank you. Thanks Mary for your valiant effort and apologies for not having assumed you would defend the position we had agreed to... Bill, note than NPOC was not there to do any horse trading. Sorry my frustration appeared to be arrogance...we sometimes say things we do not mean or are interpretated differently as what they are meant to or what we meant to say... like you going to dinner in San Juan!...
I suppose ignorance about ILP is what it is... is ignorance ever a justification? There is not only one book and one review about ILP but a full body of knowledge that goes back decades... PhD thesis are written about it and international lawyers use it in international cases and courts.
What concerns me more is that we ALL (including myself) forgot about INGOs and the resolution ends up being about IGOs only... I hope that can be resolved.... Yes, some INGOs have ILP (that is why I felt it was necessary in a whereas clause) but they are not IGOs.... who was working for INGOs on the Council earlier today? The omission of INGOs may have been inadvertent but it is real.
I hope Avri is right and that we can include INGOs in the issues report...
Alain
Ken Bour
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:53 AM, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello and sorry I couldn't update everyone before now (was at meetings allday and had an evening work event; got back to emails only around midnight EST).
Alain, I hope that you and NPOC will find the MP3 and transcripts of the meeting useful, when they are released. Essentially, they speak to Bill's point of clarification, as well as Avri's. The Council understands clearly why NCSG wanted to include the phrase "international legal personality", but many felt it would create unnecessary confusion to include it expressly in the motion. You'll see that the motion as finally agreed on mentions the possibility of criteria being developed to determine protections for IGOs, thus implicitly acknowledging the possibility of an international legal personality test being developed. As Avri says, there will be ample time and opportunity during the process involved in an Issue Report to point out specific criteria and possible tests, as well as comment on the issue more generally. Frankly, even if an NPOC member was on the Council, I'm pretty sure the result will have been the same.
I hope you'll convey the details of what actually happened to NPOC members, since none of us want any misunderstandings arising as a result of the fact that no one listened in to the Council call as it was happening (which is a service ICANN provides) and so it is possible that misinformation may have already occurred. I'll also update the NCSG membership with these details once the MP3 and transcript recordings are available, so that members can verify our representations and statements themselves at that time.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit http://law.unh.edu.
Ken Bour
Dear Mary, dear Colleagues,
At least one NPOC member who listened on line tell me that you Mary defended the ILP language with your usual skill and persuasiveness. Thank you. I should not have jumped to conclusions without listening to the actual exchanges - for ever learning the benefits of trashing the first email version and resume a second version the next morning!!!!
In any case, my humble apologies to Mary of course and to all who have taken offence.
So, can INGOs be included with IGOs in this issues report? or do we need another resolution for INGOs?
Cheers,
Alain