Katitza...
That's understandable.
Since I'm the one who petitioned for the consumer constituency, I will explain why I did: The ALAC is an advisory council, without a vote on policy matters. In my experience, ICANN does take the advice of ALAC seriously, but the breadth of that advice can range to topics I am not necessarily sure are of interest to the consumer community. For instance, I'm not sure consumer groups would care all that much about IPv4 to IPv6 transition, or the minutiae of how ICANN spends its budget. But they may care about elements of the contracts ICANN holds with registrars that determine a range of issues affecting the consumer experience on the Internet. They may also care about safety, stability and security concerns, as well as free speech and intellectual property. It seemed like there should be a simpler venue for consumer groups to express their opinions and affect policymaking on these types of matters, since the resources of consumer groups are scarce and limited, and since these issues are but a part of what is within the ALAC's mandate.
The new consumers constituency, in theory, would fit into the new Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group. The current NCUC would evolve into the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group. That new group would have voting power on the GNSO council (GNSO stands for generic names supporting organization, though by my understanding it seems to be where all the action is in ICANN policymaking). ALAC has no vote on the GNSO. So it would seem that there would be a place for consumer groups within this new consumer constituency, and also within ALAC. (In addition, the North American regional organization of ALAC accepts individual members).
In the near future, the theory is that there would not be as much duplication of effort.
Hope this helps a little bit.
Beau Brendler
-----Original Message-----
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katitza Rodriguez Pereda
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 2:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Charter of Registrants' Rights
Dear all,
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).
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-02sep08-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
> ***********************************************************
***
Scanned
**
This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
|
