Hi,
I do not believe NCSG has an existence beyond ICANN. There are other advocacy groups that might be better placed for direct response to the US Government.
If we believed that ICANN had done the wrong thing in avoiding the issue, though, we could/should have said so.
And as hard as it might be for some, since we agree they did the right thing, it might also be a good idea to support their decisions, and in the process say why that is.
The only thing I would personally be critical of, is the way an essentially policy decision was taken with no consultation or even discussion with the community to explain why they had done what they did. Perhaps they discussed it with the Board, but how would we know, because of ICANN's Culture of Secrecy, nothing has been said. We also do not know why they did it - maybe it just did not fit into anyone's schedule. So a discussion that brings out these issues and explores the reasons why it might have made sense for them to have made the decision they did, might also be useful.
a.
On 5 Oct 2010, at 08:22, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> I wasn't saying we should avoid saying anything. I think we should be
> harshly critical (butt-kickingly so, even), and that the statement
> should come from "individual members of NCSG and ALAC" (and others)
> rather than from NCSG and ALAC as ICANN institutions.
>
> Do you (all) think NCSG has an existence independent of ICANN? I think
> we have other, better coordinating mechanisms.
>
> --Wendy
>
> On 10/05/2010 08:10 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> PS. no problem with as Carlos says: 'kicking butt' on any issue.
>>
>> a.
>>
>> On 5 Oct 2010, at 07:57, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Bill, I see it differently. The corporate staff is only part of ICANN. ICANN is all of us volunteer community + professional staff. That is one of the things that makes a difference. If we surrender ICANN to just the corporatists, it will become just another big business and then we truly will be able to do very little to affect it.
>>>
>>> In my opinion that would be a terrible loss of this multistakeholder experiment.
>>>
>>> a.
>>>
>>> On 5 Oct 2010, at 07:46, William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Wendy
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 4, 2010, at 6:22 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm also concerned about COICA (see
>>>>> <http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2010/09/21/copyright-censorship-and-domain-name-blacklists-at-home-in-the-us.html>),
>>>>> but I'm wary of doing something from ICANN-space.
>>>>>
>>>>> ICANN declined to participate in DC discussions of "voluntary" domain
>>>>> censorship measures last week, and I think that's the right stance --
>>>>> it's outside ICANN's scope to address the *use* of domain names. I
>>>>> think we could submit joint comments as individuals whose knowledge and
>>>>> experience comes in part from participation in ICANN activities.
>>>>
>>>> While it's probably not wise to engage in existentialism after a big lunch, I'm puzzled…are you saying that we are all ICANN, ICANN has chosen to stay away, ergo we should keep mum? Personally, I don't feel I am ICANN, the bylaws abiding corporate entity whose paid leadership and staff took and executed a (correct) decision with any consultation etc. I'm just a member of one the broad volunteer communities that float in its spaces and tries to influence its decisions, when we know about them; don't think being on Council changes that, either. So unless there's something in the NCSG charter I missed (haven't look at the evolving draft since Brussels) which states that NCSG cannot take positions on critically important matters of Internet misgovernance that would directly impact the management of the DNS, I don't see why we'd be obliged to stay silent…?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/03/2010 09:21 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks Bill, I'd like to help on this. And I agree working with ALAC, and
>>>>>> particularly Marc Rotenburg, would be a good idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:11 AM, William Drake <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Kathy and Rafik for the updates. Good to know the bill won't be
>>>>>>> taken up until after the midterm elections, but troubling that the WH is
>>>>>>> nevertheless pushing forward with the notion of using the DNS to censor at
>>>>>>> the behest of intellectual property interests. At least ICANN had the good
>>>>>>> sense not to get involved in the latter discussion,
>>>>>>> http://domainincite.com/icann-will-not-attend-white-house-drugs-meeting/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the Senate swings back to consider COICA, I would still favor us
>>>>>>> writing a letter, perhaps in conjunction with ALAC. I'd be happy to work on
>>>>>>> a draft, perhaps after Cartagena and before the holiday season. If anyone
>>>>>>> would be interested in collaborating on this just send me a note for future
>>>>>>> reference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 2, 2010, at 1:47 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hi Bill,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for contracted parties, they have pressure from US gov and even had meeting
>>>>>>> at White house this week I think
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100929/20293711230/even-without-coica-white-house-asking-registrars-to-voluntarily-censor-infringing-sites.shtml
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100929/20293711230/even-without-coica-white-house-asking-registrars-to-voluntarily-censor-infringing-sites.shtml>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2010/9/30 William Drake <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe this is something on which NCSG, ALAC, and others in ICANNland
>>>>>>>> should weigh in on, e.g. with a letter to Leahy? It would certainly seem to
>>>>>>>> fall within our bailiwick...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have yet to hear anything from the contracted parties, will be interesting
>>>>>>>> to see how they play it…
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *From: *William Drake <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>> *Date: *September 30, 2010 9:54:54 AM GMT+02:00
>>>>>>>> *To: *[log in to unmask], "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>> *Subject: **COICA*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> COICA is an intergalactically horrible idea that seems designed to greatly
>>>>>>>> escalate concerns about unilateralism vis. CIR. As CDT's letter
>>>>>>>> http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/Leahy_bill_memo.pdf notes,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "S. 3804 significantly aggravates the situation by suggesting to the world
>>>>>>>> that the U.S. does intend to use the historic nature of the DNS (with
>>>>>>>> American companies administering “.com” and other leading top-level domains)
>>>>>>>> to impose American law on the global Internet. Under the bill, the U.S.
>>>>>>>> asserts that it can take down websites created and operated anywhere in the
>>>>>>>> world, simply based on the fact that the websites use the most popular
>>>>>>>> global top-level domain (.com). This type of assertion of global control is
>>>>>>>> the kind of U.S. exercise of power about which other countries of the world
>>>>>>>> have worried – and about which U.S. foreign policy has sought to reassure
>>>>>>>> the world. Thus S. 3804 directly harms the United Statesʼ Internet
>>>>>>>> governance agenda pursued through diplomatic channels over the past ten
>>>>>>>> years."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A bit astonishing and sad that the bill was introduced by Patrick Leahy,
>>>>>>>> who for many years has been a champion of online civil liberties and partner
>>>>>>>> of US public interest groups on digital matters. But the IPR lobby is a
>>>>>>>> powerful beast that apparently must be placated…Still, I'd like to think
>>>>>>>> he's going through the motions here and knows this should fail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 30, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ***********************************************************
>>>>>>>> William J. Drake
>>>>>>>> Senior Associate
>>>>>>>> Centre for International Governance
>>>>>>>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>>>>>>> Development Studies
>>>>>>>> Geneva, Switzerland
>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>>>>>>>> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
>>>>>>>> ***********************************************************
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask] +1 914-374-0613
>>>>> Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
>>>>> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
>>>>> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
>>>>> http://www.chillingeffects.org/
>>>>> https://www.torproject.org/
>>>>> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>>>>
>>>> ***********************************************************
>>>> William J. Drake
>>>> Senior Associate
>>>> Centre for International Governance
>>>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>>> Development Studies
>>>> Geneva, Switzerland
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>>>> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
>>>> ***********************************************************
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask] +1 914-374-0613
> Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>
|
