I guess it is a matter of what time frame one thinks were the "bad old
days." What remains is not only the lack of voting participation (most
of the time, but sometimes you have votes), but complete lack of process
to include anyone outside of the Councilors, who are the same 4-5 who
rotate around in the offices and appointments over the years. It isn't a
matter of simply electing representatives, because not all of the
regional reps and officers are regularly involved. I am not suggesting
the answer is requiring a vote before taking positions, as that will
also be perfunctory. But perhaps it would help to have some effort to
engage members in consensus building. Further, NCUC could include in
official position statements some indication of who and how many members
support the position.
Cheryl B. Preston
Edwin M. Thomas
Professor of Law
J. Reuben Clark Law School
Brigham Young University
434 JRCB
Provo, UT 84602
(801) 422-2312
[log in to unmask]
>>> Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> 9/11/2008 2:39 pm >>>
Hi, Mary:
You're right, in telecom regulation (which I've been familiar with in
various countries) they often pose specific questions in their proposed
rulemakings. And that doesn't stop anyone from saying whatever they want
to say regardless! But it often helps them to frame and classify
responses. In ICANN it is new. And based on some past experiences there
may be a lack of trust in the staff to be neutral in the way they frame
issues and ask questions.
Another issue is that we can expect GNSO to ask us to document levels
of support and "participation" in our constituency statements. This is
problematic because it is based on the premise that most members have
nothing more important to do than follow the ins and outs of every
single ICANN proceeding. My assumption has always been that you elect
Councilors to do most of the work, and weigh in when you have a special
interest or special knowledge about a situation. In the bad old days,
when the precursor to the NCUC had a dysfunctional constitution, we used
to have a vote of the entire membership before our Councillors could
take a position on anything. Which usually meant, no timely position.
Too much traffic on the list, people couldn't keep up with it.
--M
________________________________
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 2:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [council] Constituency input sought on
the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP
Hi Robin and everyone,
I agree that this practice can raise exactly those issues of concern
you pointed out (and for the reasons you highlighted). On the other
hand, I imagine that proponents of the template would argue that the
efficiency and global community input achievable potentially with this
practice may outweigh any risks of manipulation by interested parties.
It may be useful to get more background regarding this practice,
particularly given that many government and international consultations
(e.g. on proposed legislative reform) tend to take the form of
consultation papers that reflect a similar template, i.e. specific
questions that are drafted and posed by the person/entity/department
circulating the document, thereby enabling the management and
circumscribing of full debates. Perhaps you, Carlos, Milton, Norbert or
others who know more about the history and practices of ICANN
input-seeking can chime in?
For instance, how has the process been managed in the past (e.g., were
specific questions posed, who drafted them and did non-ICANN personnel
and various constituencies have any drafting role)? Also, how were the
comments collected and publicized (e.g., were they all made public in
full, and was it possible to include additional comments outside the
boundaries set by the questions)?
Cheers
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/profs/wong.htm
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 9/8/2008 9:35 AM >>>
ICANN is now sending out templates for constituency input. It used to
be the case that a constituency could express its own concerns in its
own constituency statement. But this new proposed format leaves
significant opportunity to manage policy debate by asking some things,
but not other things. And of course the way in which the questions are
worded in the template can encourage a specific perspective that the
constituency may not share. So this new template for constituency
input is an example in which the GNSO can be more easily "managed" by
ICANN and working group chairs...... concerning.
Best,
Robin
Begin forwarded message:
From: Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask]>
Date: September 5, 2008 2:26:24 AM PDT
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [council] Constituency input sought on the Inter-Registrar
Transfer Policy Set A PDP
Dear All,
Each constituency is invited to provide input to the Inter-Registrar
Transfer Policy Set A PDP.
Please use the attached template, which can also be directly viewed on
the Wiki, when providing constituency input.
https://st.icann.org/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/index.cgi?template_for_constituency_statements_pdp_irtp_part_a
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP workspace is at:
https://st.icann.org/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/index.cgi?irtp_part_a_pdp_wg_pdp_jun08
The deadline for submission of the constituency statements is 3 October
2008.
https://st.icann.org/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/index.cgi?irtp_part_a_draft_working_group_timetable
Constituency statements should be submitted to the working group list:
<[log in to unmask]> NLT COB on 3 October 2008.
Marika Konings, Policy Director, is the ICANN staff person supporting
the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
[log in to unmask]
http://gnso.icann.org
|
