Good morning,
I see Brenden customized and posted Mary's nice statement, glad it got
in under the wire. But the submission label, 'Achieve broader
representativeness in NCSG by approving the NCUC charter proposal,'
doesn't quite signal 'NCUC response to underhanded business
attack' (or some more diplomatic formulation). Don't know how widely
this will be seen or resonate, so a subsequent group submission
addressing their main attack line---and explaining yet again the
difficulty of getting noncomm people to commit the time to these
processes, our efforts to outreach/broaden and future hopes for same,
etc----would be good. And while there are arguments against doing so,
on balance I think critiquing their lousy charter draftette in turn
would be an appropriately proportionate response to this shadowy K St.
hard ball.
BD
On Apr 16, 2009, at 2:00 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
> This is fantastic Mary, thanks! I support the statement. It is more
> than adequate and should be submitted just to get on the record. We
> can always follow up as needed.
>
> Best,
> Brenden
>
> On 4/15/09, Mary Wong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I agree - in the limited few hours left we may want to focus on the
>> criticisms leveled by the IPC and continue to work on a response that
>> critiques the IPC's own proposal.
>>
>> It's almost midnight here in England and I'm jetlagged and
>> exhausted - can
>> someone volunteer to submit a response to the public comment forum
>> along the
>> lines of:
>>
>> "The IPC appears to be attempting to re-open the Board's resolution
>> of 28
>> August 2008, which endorsed the WG-GCR report and approved the
>> division of
>> seats in the new non-contracted party house (6 from the Commercial
>> Stakeholder Group, and 6 from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>> Group). The
>> NCUC as currently comprised acknowledges and accepts the BGC's view
>> that a
>> new NCSG should go beyond the current membership of the NCUC (as
>> detailed in
>> the BGC report of 3 February 2008, approved by the Board on 26 June
>> 2008.)
>> It is the view of those who submitted the proposed new NCSG charter
>> on 16
>> March 2009 that:
>>
>> (1) the new charter will go further than the existing NCUC
>> processes and the
>> charters submitted by the other existing ICANN Constituencies to
>> ensure
>> broader, more diverse and greater participation and membership by (a)
>> minimizing barriers to membership/entry for both individuals and
>> organizations; (b) ensuring that minority views are represented;
>> and (c)
>> allowing for the easy formation (subject to Board approval) of new
>> constituencies; and
>>
>> (2) the IPC's critique of the re-seating of the 3 existing NCUC
>> Councillors
>> fails to recognize that this is simply a one-off transition move.
>> Given the
>> tremendous workload and incredibly short ramping-up time new
>> Councillors
>> have to become familiar with ICANN processes, acronyms, bylaws and
>> operations, it is simply not feasible to expect any constituency/SG
>> to hold
>> elections and seat new Councillors by the Sydney meeting. Further,
>> the GNSO
>> Improvements Process itself recognizes the need to ensure
>> transitional
>> continuity (e.g. by the possibility, now beind discussed within the
>> GNSO
>> Council, of having staggered terms for Councillors) and for proper
>> training
>> of Councillors. It is thus entirely possible that the new NCSG may,
>> upon
>> formation, hold elections for new Councillors; the current NCSG
>> charter
>> proposal merely suggests a that reseating incumbent Councillors is a
>> transitory stage to such elections."
>>
>> Robin or someone - can you review, edit and (if the substance of my
>> comments
>> here are acceptable to folks on this listserv) send to the Public
>> Comments
>> forum ASAP? I'm honestly too wiped out to know if I'm making any
>> sense :(
>>
>> Thanks,
>> 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/marywong/index.php
>> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
>> (SSRN)
>> at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>
>>
>>>>> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 4/15/2009 5:48 PM >>>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> I agree that we should submit a response to this that discusses in
>> detail
>> the great wisdom of their SG proposal. However, I'd prefer that we
>> not try
>> to throw something together in 2 hours, but rather take some time
>> and come
>> up with a solid document. A response from the non-commercial users
>> to the
>> IPC's charge against us must be received by ICANN - even if it
>> comes in 1
>> week after the public comment period.
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Apr 15, 2009, at 2:16 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Robin,
>>
>> Nice that they waited until the last minute to submit this, without
>> ever
>> seeking a discussion with us in any setting.
>>
>> What's the precise cut off time for comments? It's what, 2pm in
>> California,
>> so there is some time before COB. If you have a little head space,
>> why not
>> write a short critique of the CSG Charter, such that it is? It's
>> after 11pm
>> here and I can't type any more today, but I'd support whatever you
>> come up
>> with. There's plenty to complain about starting with the first
>> para, which
>> claims the CSC represents "users;" the restrictive membership
>> construction
>> (e.g. how many individual entrepreneurs do they have, how
>> representative,
>> diverse, and "deserving" are they); and complete lack of clarity and
>> development in their draft about essentially all institutional
>> aspects (all
>> those high-paid lawyers and this is the best they can do?), a point
>> that
>> should be hammered. Perhaps a new council shouldn't be seated until
>> they
>> clarify how they will select six reflecting the criteria we are
>> alleged not
>> to meet.
>>
>> Just a thought.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:45 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> The IP Constituency submitted its comments today on the stakeholder
>> group
>> petitions.
>>
>> See:
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/
>> pdfyb62GoZM3w.pdf
>>
>> It calls on the ICANN Board to deny the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
>> Group its
>> rightful 6 council seats, claiming we aren't "representative"
>> enough. The
>> IPC complains because our counselors will remain seated after June
>> (but
>> doesn't mention that its own counselors will also remain seated).
>> In fact,
>> it didn't make any comments on its own proposals - it is only a
>> slam on all
>> non-commercial users proposals.
>>
>> Wow. They really are desperate with this move.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>> Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> [log in to unmask]
>> New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
>> http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
>> ***********************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> Brenden Kuerbis
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
[log in to unmask]
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
***********************************************************
|
