> -----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Katitza Rodriguez Pereda
> 
> I am a little confused between NCUC, ALAC and the new 
> consumer group.  Why too many group and it seems all of them works for the Public  
> Interest? (digital rights, consumer rights, internet users rights).

Katitza:
Good question! This relates to the charter proposal for NCSG. There are two different proposals before ICANN taking different approaches, one put forward by NCUC, the other by CP80. 

One of the strengths of the NCUC proposal is that different constituencies would not fragment the noncommercial participants into "silos" that would have difficulty communicating with each other. I hope Beau (and ICANN staff, and the Board, and everyone else) noticed how confused you are by the proliferation of groups. We have been telling them this for a long time. 

Under the NCUC proposal for NCSG, Beau could form his Consumer constituency as a subgrouping of the NCSG members. Everyone would join the NCSG, and form subgroups secondarily. Under the CP80 proposal, the Consumer Constituency becomes a completely separate organization. If you want to be part of a privacy constituency, then you have to join a separate organization, with its own mailing list, its own elections, etc. And worse, these Constituencies will then have to compete with each other for members, participation, and sometimes Council seats. This approach, as you sense Katitza, would be a disaster for effective civil society organization.

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
 

> 
> Look forward to hearing back from you,
> 
> katitza
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 14, 2009, at 2:29 PM, William Drake wrote:
> 
> > Hi Beau,
> >
> > I've been meaning to circle back to you on this issue but alas too  
> > much else going on...We really need to get moving on the charter,  
> > since:
> >
> > *The public comment period on the RAA amendments closed April 6.   
> > Not a ton of feedback but some interesting bits, summarized 
> by staff  
> > at
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-consultation/msg00080.html
> >
> > *The board hasn't acted yet on the Council's 4 March 
> resolution, but  
> > once they do team(s) formation is to happen within 30 days--- 
> > mandated to draft a charter, identify any further 
> amendments to the  
> > RAA, and provide advice to the Council and ICANN staff no 
> later than  
> > 31 July 2009.
> >
> > *Tim Ruiz of the RrC sent a note saying they're ready to proceed  
> > when we are, i.e. they're waiting on us.
> >
> > *The GNSO council is scheduled to address this on its 
> Thursday 16th  
> > call.  I gather from the draft minutes of the last council meeting  
> > (I was on a plane) that there was some discussion of 
> whether to form  
> > one unified drafting team or two; that someone suggested the  
> > Registrars provide a list of existing rights (hmm..); and 
> that Avri  
> > suggested the need for a description of the group's mission, and  
> > that the council begin with one group while leaving open 
> the option  
> > to split into two if needed.
> >
> > A single drafting team may be better than having two advance  
> > potentially quite different proposals and then trying to reconcile  
> > them, but it would still make sense for interested people 
> from NCUC  
> > and ALAC to have worked together to identify at least a working  
> > shared conception of what we'd want in there so that whomever  
> > represents us on the team has more to go on (hopefully 
> there will be  
> > back and forth consultation during the drafting as well).  
> It would  
> > also make sense to solicit any inputs from other 
> interested/affected  
> > communities; presumably we'd want as inclusive and transparent a  
> > process as possible.  Thus far I've held off on bringing 
> this to the  
> > attention of other IG-oriented civil society groupings because we  
> > don't have easily accessible background material, the sort 
> of stuff  
> > that would really motivate responses.  The helpful information you  
> > pointed me to regarding ALAC's prior discussions, 
> https://st.icann.org/raa-policy/index.cgi?raa_working_group_documents 
> >  and 
> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/announcements/announcement-02sep0
> 8-en.htm 
> >  might be a bit difficult as a starting point for people 
> outside the  
> > process.
> >
> > Anyway, we need to quickly pull together a group of ALAC and NCUC  
> > people who'd like to collaborate on some baseline text.  Of 
> course,  
> > other ALAC and NCUC people should feel free to provide any inputs  
> > even if they don't want to participate in this group.  And per  
> > previous, I think it would also be good for the group to put  
> > together a little outreach text that can be sent to solicit ideas  
> > from other interested communities, maybe set up a wiki for more  
> > background and inputs, etc.  And subsequently, we'll need 
> to decide  
> > who we'd want on the formal drafting team negotiating with the RrC  
> > etc.
> >
> > I'm willing to be a/the liaison from the NCUC side 
> (hopefully others  
> > will be interested as well), but I'm really not in a position to  
> > lead on this process.  As you've pointed out, ALAC has been 
> working  
> > on this stuff for awhile, so it'd make sense for you, Alan, Danny,  
> > whomever's had their head deep in these issues and cares enough to  
> > drive the thing and I'll lend a hand where able.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > On Mar 26, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, Bill. Seems like a great idea to invite participation 
> from IGF,  
> >> and from Katitza's mailing list people as well. I think 
> you are far  
> >> more familiar to both groups than I am, so it would probably be  
> >> better if you did the inviting...
> >>
> >> Beau
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: William Drake [[log in to unmask]]
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:15 AM
> >> To: Brendler, Beau
> >> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: RAA
> >>
> >> Hi Beau
> >>
> >> On Mar 25, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps Bill and I and any others who are interested can 
> simply form
> >>> a drafting team and set up a joint workspace, start a mailing list
> >>> and try to get maximum participation. We should be able 
> to get ICANN
> >>> staff to assist us in this effort.
> >>
> >> Great.  I guess my initial foggy thought was a sequential approach
> >> where NCUC and ALAC each do an internal consult and then 
> merge files,
> >> but there's no reason not to proceed directly to a joint drafting
> >> team, which should accelerate things and put us in a good 
> position  
> >> for
> >> when the formal group with other GNSO constituencies is 
> launched.   
> >> I'd
> >> be happy to participate.  Shall we invite the IGF Rights and
> >> Principles folks to suggest people (might overlap with ALAC
> >> participants anyway)?
> >>
> >> BD
> >>
> >
> > ***********************************************************
> > 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
> > ***********************************************************
>