Dear Debra,

Thank you for this letter.

First I would like to point out that the Civil in Civil society and the civil in civility have different meanings.  And while ICANN sometimes does attempt to enforce civility in a manner of suppression of free expression, i do not think that any of the comments made have risen to the level of incivility, though some may have been strong.  While there have been expression of disappointment,  feelings of betrayal and distrust of Staff, I have seen neither name calling nor other uncivil behavior.  But of course you are be free to report Civil Society's tendency to blunt speech to the Ombudsman or the Board as others have before you.

On the issue of Staff's role it may not really be a subject for conjecture on the NCSG discuss list.  I do believe it is a subject to the Accountability and Transparency Review Team. A meta discussion of how to submit that issue to the ATRT  may indeed be appropriate for this list.

I think that if you had put much of what you said in this letter, i.e. about the need for a two track strategy given the current by-laws, in your cover letter, and had given this list a bit of notification before we got the news through the public announcement methods, they shock and reaction may have been lessened.  Of course you were and are free to handle your application in any way you and the Staff see fit, I just think that as one of the NCSG council members and a NCUC member, you might have chosen differently.  But you didn't and here we are.

Yes, you did object to part of the charter at the very end of the process.  Those differences were discussed and not accepted by the group at large.  I did, however explicitly refer to your and Rosemary's position in the Cover letter to the Board, which you had to time to review both in the Executive Committee (for several weeks) and on the Discuss list (for a short day).   The discussion itself is recorded on the NCSG-EC wiki site. So this is not something I have tried to hide.

As for letters to the Board, I expect we will deluge them with all sorts letters if that is the way we propose to resolve this and I am sure I will end up writing at least one of them.  I do hope there are ways to resolve and discuss this other then escalating this into a full fledged internecine event.  As Chair of the EC, I feel it is my duty to at least suggest that discussing this before escalation may be a reasonable step.  But if it needs to escalate so be it.

In closing, I am available to discuss this issue with you and other in Brussels.  Let me reiterate, I hope we can find a way forward without completely descending into conflict as that will hurt all of our causes.  Let me also encourage you and the members of your proposed Constituency, and any other Constituency that is contemplated, to continue joining the NSSG and to start contributing to the substantive discussions in the GNSO.

Best Regards,
a.



On 17 Jun 2010, at 10:59, Debra Hughes wrote:

> June 17, 2010
>  
> To the NCSG:
>  
> For the sake of clarity, I am writing one email in response to the email exchanges from various members of the NCSG Executive Council and NCSG community beginning on June 16th regarding the filing of a NOIF for a proposed not-for-profit constituency.  I am very concerned with the tone of these emails, but more importantly, the careless manner in which my volunteer efforts spent exploring the engagement of not-for-profit organizations has been described.  Ironically, this group has self identified itself as representing “civil society” among other interests, but unfortunately, these email exchanges have been less than civil.  If you believe my actions have been inappropriate, I would have expected that you would have at least read the filings and my emails before making such strong comments.  Comments made “off the cuff” or without proper due diligence, are very harmful in this environment. Perhaps this type of discourse has been “business as usual for” for the NCUC; however, please be very clear that I take strong exception to such comments, insinuations and accusations.  I plan to prepare a letter to the ICANN Board and perhaps the broader ICANN Community in light of the important nature of these public accusations and comments regarding a perceived lack of transparency.
>  
> Timing of Filing and Accusation of Bad Faith
> Concerns were raised regarding the timing of the filing of the NOIF.  As I explained that I planned to file the NOIF before the Brussels meeting during my outreach webinar on May 12, 2010 and during subsequent emails to those that were added to the email distribution list after the webinar.   There was no clandestine plan to time the filing of the NOIF with the voting for the NCSG charter.  Balancing my work obligations with my volunteer service unfortunately pushed the filing date to this week.  I would ask in the future that you carefully consider such conclusions before voicing them in this public forum. 
>  
> There have been comments that filing the NOIF was an act of “bad faith.”   I adamantly disagree.  Filing the NOIF is consistent with the plans I have been routinely articulating to the ICANN community. I explained concerns and thoughts about the constituency model in a series of emails on the list serve beginning on May 7th in conjunction with the redlined draft of the charter I submitted.  Among my other comments to the draft, I expressed my concern regarding the ICANN community’s current lack of recognition of Interest Groups as a valid structure, entitled to equivalent status and standing as constituencies within the GNSO.  I understand that before I was appointed, the NCUC made the decision to embrace the Interest Group model and dissolve constituencies for the NCSG.  Comparisons have been made that Stakeholder Groups can function appropriately without constituencies, pointing to the Registry Stakeholder Group and Registrar Stakeholder Groups.  I think comparing those SGs with the NCSG is not proper.  The membership of these two SGs contain very similarly situated members with almost identical missions/business.  On the other hand, the members of the NSCG are very diverse and comprise individuals, and various types of organizations and groups.  NCSG members have diverse views on important topics, as demonstrated in much of the emails exchanged about this matter.   
>  
> While ICANN may eventually recognize Interest Groups, I strongly argued during the charter drafting process and in Nairobi that it may be prudent to continue to acknowledge the constituency structure until such time that ICANN clearly identifies and acknowledges Interest Groups throughout its infrastructure.  I proposed that the new charter could include the constituency structure and then later, once the status of Interest Groups was confirmed by the ICANN community, the provision changing constituencies to Interest Groups could be inserted as an amendment later.  However, the Charter submitted for vote did not reflect this recommendation.  More importantly, I note that the current document governing the NCSG – The Transitional Charter – contains no provision for Interest Groups.  See Section 2.0 Organization and Membership.  Since Interest Groups do not currently enjoy the same benefits and status as constituencies, it does not make sense to consider organizing not-for-profit organizations in an Interest Group. Thus, the filing of a NOIF for exploring the creation of a not-for-profit consistency is not improper, does not violate any existing NCSG provision or policy and is consistent with NCSG’s own existing charter.
>  
> Some have commented that my actions are the result of manipulation or influence by ICANN staff as a continuation of perceived bad blood between Staff and the NCUC/NCSG.  This is inaccurate and I am unsure of the motivation and intended result of such charged comments.  I do not support what I perceive to be unproductive accusations about the intent of ICANN staff and Board.  I am not a pawn and I have no desire to be a pawn of any member of the ICANN community.  Saying such is deeming and in my opinion, undermines the perception of the NCSG.  Moreover, I will not participate in the unproductive banter about an alleged strategy to thwart the efforts of the NCSG/NCUC.  I acknowledge that the appointment of the GNSO Councilors created bad feelings among some in the NCUC.  However, please be clear that my objectives: (1) representing and increasing the voice of not-for-profit organizations ICANN policy discussions and (2) outreach to not-for-profit organizations not already engaged in ICANN, were not created to undermine the NCUC or NCSG.  Rather, I have hoped the NCUC and NCSG would welcome new voices at the table. 
>  
> Plans for Filing and Outreach Not a Surprise
> The filing of the NOIF for a not-for-profit constituency should not be a surprise.  Since the fall of 2009 at my first meeting in Seoul, I have taken many opportunities to speak about by my outreach plans (many of which are outlined in the NOIF).  I have clearly articulated my objectives in both my Statement of Interest submitted when applying for the appointed GNSO position and through many conversations with stakeholders in the ICANN community.  I have viewed my role as a volunteer with ICANN to include: (1) representing the interests and perspective of not-for-profit organizations and increasing their voice in ICANN policy discussions, especially with my role as a GNSO Councilor and (2) outreach to not-for-profit organizations not already engaged in ICANN policy discussions. For example, the status of my outreach and organizing plans were very openly discussed during the NCSG meeting in Nairobi and with individual NCSG Councilors and member of the NCSG Executive Committee during the meeting.  
>  
> Also, on May 6, 2010, I sent the NCUC listserve an invitation to participate in an informational webinar for not-for-profit organizations.  In fact some NCUC members participated. During that webinar, I provided an overview of my outreach activities and explained discussed the timeline for moving forward for formally organizing.  Therefore, I am stunned by the accusation that I have been less than transparent about my activities. 
>  
> I am also surprised by comments that I got “3 or 4…friends in nonprofits (none of whom have any profile or activity in domain name issues) to apply for NCSG to further some untoward result.  Again, I take exception to this comment and the implication that I have not performed outreach beyond the colleagues I know.  When embarking on my outreach plans, it was prudent for me to begin with colleagues that I work with.  However, my outreach efforts were not limited to my “friends in nonprofits,” rather, through the webinars and other efforts, I was able to connect with not-for-profit organizations with whom I have not previously worked.  I have actively encouraged organizations not already involved with the NCUC or ICANN to join the NCSG and many organizations have done so.  I have worked very hard to expand the membership of the NCSG.  I have asked members of the ICANN community, including members of the Board, stakeholders in other Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups and those on the NCUC listserve as mentioned above, to help me identify organizations and contacts.  I am pleased to report that the response has been very supportive and successful and many of the letters of support of the NOIF are from new connections made since January of 2010.    
>  
> As many of you know, creating a new group, especially a group that will be comprised of international members poses many challenges.  Outreach and increasing participation is a process, not a destination. Before filing the NOIF, I believe I have made considerable efforts to engage the ICANN community and those not already involved in ICANN.  However, these efforts are just beginning.  By filing the NOIF, the organizing group will have much needed access to meeting and organizing resources to further its outreach efforts and to continue the conversation. 
>  
> I look forward to further discussing this matter and the issued presented in Brussels.
>  
> Respectfully,
> /Debra Hughes/
> Debra Hughes
> Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel 
> American Red Cross
> 
> Office of the General Counsel  
> 2025 E Street, NW 
> Washington, D.C. 20006 
> Phone: (202) 303-5356 
> Fax: (202) 303-0143 
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 9:34 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [council] FYI - New GNSO Constituency Notice of Intent - Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency
>  
> Alex,
>  
> I wish I could say that this isn't 'par for the course' with ICANN staff to try to divide and conquer us.  It is also unfortunate that the proponents of this proposal don't seem to be aware that EVERY organization in NCSG is a nonprofit organization.  If Debbie could have found the time to participate in a single NCSG policy call over the last year (or on this NCSG mailing list), the noncommercial membership might have been given a chance to learn about this effort and provide feedback.  
>  
> ICANN staff's manipulation thrives in a communication vacuum.   And they do work closely with the commercial constituencies on how to shape the noncommercial space.
>  
> Best,
> Robin
>  
>  
> On Jun 16, 2010, at 9:37 PM, Alex Gakuru wrote:
> 
> 
> While have been busy healing wounds from past NCSG breakup attempts,
> now another one pops up!
>  
> I do not support it, very disappointed although was not entirely
> unexpected and we should brace ourselves for more such in future.
>  
> Apparently their game plan may be to keep up very busy with
> "infighting" to reduce our effectiveness in icann.
>  
> Sadly,
>  
> Alex
>  
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>  
>>  
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>  
>> From: Robert Hoggarth <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: 16 June 2010 14:28:42 EDT
>> To: Council GNSO <[log in to unmask]>
>> Cc: Robert Hoggarth <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: [council] FYI - New GNSO Constituency Notice of Intent -
>> Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency
>>  
>> Dear GNSO Council Members;
>>  
>> For your information, attached please find a copy of the Notice of Intent to
>> Form a New GNSO Constituency (NOIF) submitted by Debra Hughes of the
>> American National Red Cross proposing to form a new Not-for-Profit
>> Organizations Constituency.
>>  
>> As some of you may recall, the NOIF document is an informal expression of
>> interest that does not require any action.  The intent of this first step is
>> simply to spur community dialogue and reaction to the proposal.
>>  
>> The NOIF, accompanying cover letter and additional supporting documents are
>> being posted on the GNSO Improvements web page at
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm.  This proposal
>> package has been transmitted for sharing with Board members and I will
>> transmit it to the GNSO Constituency leaders list shortly.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>>  
>> Rob Hoggarth
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>  
>  
> 
>  
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
>