Just quickly:

Even in *developed* countries, non-commercial users/institutions often
don't have much time to *volunteer* to participate, to match the level of
*paid* participation by commercial interests.

While I'm still monitoring this list these days, I have virtually no time
to participate since ending my pro bono work for IP Justice, rewarding
though it was for me at the time.  Heck, I rarely keep up with the flow
here, just sample a few interesting-looking posts from time to time to get
a flavor of what's going on.

The diffuse public interest has always had a collective-action problem to
overcome, that always puts it at a disadvantage compared to better
financed special interests that glean more focused benefits from lobbying
efforts.  Sounds like ICANN staff is actively conspiring to leverage the
collective action problem big-time, these days.

It's truly offensive to hear about these recent developments.  In the past
ICANN seemed merely clumsy and mal-influenced, but now it is appearing
increasingly malicious in its own right.  I wonder what Jon Zittrain
thinks of all this, these days.  ;-)

Good luck fighting this, folks.  I'm sorry I don't have the time to
participate actively, but you *do* represent *me*.  And there are a lot of
folks whom you represent, who don't even have the foggiest idea that
you're representing them.

That's not your fault, or theirs.  It's a structural issue of society at
its deepest levels, and trying to devise a system of governance to address
that issue is something no one has completely figured out yet.  But it
appears that ICANN is actively trying to move away from any such
resolution, and is just making the representational problems worse.

What is infuriating about it is that they seem to know exactly what they
are doing, and are hardly making any excuses for it, even while their
rhetoric seems intended to deflect and distract from it.  In their effort
to reinvent institutional governance in a way that avoids the pitfalls of
political history, they've instead embraced the very worst of political
dynamics.  They seem to have become exactly what they envisioned was their
worst enemy at the outset, justifying their reason for being in the first
place.

How ironic.  Perhaps also, how predictable.  Ka'Plah!

Dan


-- 
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



On Thu, August 6, 2009 11:34 am, Robin Gross wrote:
> I also have significant concerns about ICANN's plan to penalize
> noncommercial users who are not "active" in the GNSO with less
> representation.
>
> When you vote in a democracy, you don't have to prove that you
> donated 100 hours of community service in order to be entitled to a
> vote, as ICANN proposes.  No, this is just another another mechanism
> to gate and minimize user participation and influence.
>
> What about people in developing countries who can't get online and
> can't raise the funds to get to ICANN meetings or to be in a position
> to donate their time to ICANN?   They aren't entitled to a vote on
> Internet policy because they aren't "active" enough for ICANN?  What
> about the fact ICANN is mainly conducted in English?  It seems non-
> English speakers who cannot "actively" participate don't deserve a
> vote either?
>
> ICANN needs to understand it costs noncommercial organizations and
> individuals to participate at ICANN in ways that are unique to all
> other ICANN stakeholders.  There are significant bars to ICANN
> participation that ICANN cannot use to "gate" to representation of
> noncommercial users.  Not in a democratic institution accountable to
> the global public interest.
>
> Robin
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2009, at 2:17 AM, William Drake wrote:
>
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> I'm fine with restating openness to dialogue etc as you suggest.
>> Not that we haven't before.
>>
>> Would like to pick up on one specific bit:
>>
>> On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>
>>> The NCUC does not have membership (or significant membership) from
>>> international consumer organizations (noted in many recent
>>> comments from the board and others as a missing constituent in all
>>> of ICANN), nor for the largest academic communities, libraries,
>>> R&D, etc.
>>
>> This may well be "noted" by the board and others but it is patently
>> untrue http://ncuc.syr.edu/members.htm.   Just more
>> disinformation.  (BTW I also noted some on the transcript of the
>> ALAC call, e.g. Nick saying that the NCUC proposal does not allow
>> board approval of constituencies...facts don't matter if one can't
>> be bothered to learn them).
>>
>> Which is not to say that it wouldn't be great to have more groups
>> with "consumer" in their title etc.
>>
>> Perhaps this needs to be a larger, more focused discussion
>> sometime, but while I think of it it's worth mentioning that there
>> is also a claim in said circles that our members are not all
>> sufficiently active and hence our diversity is just on paper, which
>> in turn is supposed to allow for "capture" by a small cabal.  This
>> of course is held against us as well, and will be relevant in the
>> NCSG.  As you know, the staff's "Suggested Additional Stakeholder
>> Group Charter Elements to Ensure Transparency, Openness, Fairness
>> and Representativeness Principles" hold, inter alia, that "It is
>> important that the Board and the community have the ability to
>> determine what parties comprise a particular GNSO structure and who
>> participates in an active way....[hence] Each GNSO structure should
>> collect, maintain, and publish active and inactive member names
>> identified by membership category (if applicable)"
>>
>> I raised concerns about the reasoning and operational implications
>> of this on the last GNSO call, but they were pretty much brushed
>> aside.  So I guess in some unknown manner members will have to show
>> sufficient signs of life on a frequent enough basis for staff to
>> deem them active and consider their views to "count" when
>> constituencies state positions.  Oh, and meeting attendance lists
>> must be published and will be considered too.  At least, all this
>> undoubtedly will apply to nomcomm constituencies, business ones may
>> get the usual pass from the standards to which we're held.
>>
>> And now I have to reply to the council list about this claim in the
>> SOI that we are "not yet sufficiently diverse or robust to select
>> all six"...sigh.  Pushing back on relentless disinfo does get
>> tiring...
>>
>> Bill
>
>
>
>
> 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]
>
>
>
>