Besides agreeing with Milton, I would add that most of us (nearly all of
the 200 NCUCers at least) are volunteers in our involvement in the ICANN
processes. Dispersing efforts via many specific constituencies will
simply guarantee more ineffectiveness when our time to dedicate to these
processes is really short.

--c.a.

On 07/01/2011 01:16 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> Hi Milton
>>
>> I've got problems with the "advancing an agenda" model - could it apply
>> to Privacy, IP ....to mean we didn't need constituencies in these areas
>> also...
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] It certainly does. We do not have a privacy constituency. We don't need one. About half of the organizations and individuals in NCSG consider privacy to be a concern of theirs. If you form a new constituency you just force the same people to join yet another group with another mailing list and another set of internal politics without adding ANYTHING to their capacity to work on privacy issues. 
> 
> Rosemary, it's depressing to see you fall into the same superficial thinking of ICANN staff that got us into this mess in the first place. The idea that need a "constituency" for every issue that comes along, or every set of concerns, is just fallacious. Consumers don't need an ICANN constituency. They need people (like you) who know something about the issue and are willing to devote time and energy to working on it, i.e. join Working Groups, file comments, analyze proposals, etc. Building a constituency just adds more administrative overhead, and thereby detracts from the actual work. ICANN is full of these little organizational niches, and that's why people in ICANN spend most of their time talking about process and about how all these little moving parts jostle up against each other, but so little actual policy work gets done. 
> 
> NCSG is the civil society constituency in ICANN. The more integrated is our communication and the less organizational bullshit of this sort we have to deal with, the better we can function. 
> 
>  
>> I'll check again with ALAC but a number of their folks have expressed
>> interest in Singapore in advancing the consumer constituency ...
>>
> [Milton L Mueller] No, they're not. We spoke with them Thursday and there was strong support for a consumer AGENDA but when we asked why they needed a constituency they couldn't come up with a reason. Consumer AGENDA is easily de-linked from a consumer CONSTITUENCY. By the same token, the two are easily confused. Many people in ALAC make the same mistake you are making - they assume that pursuing a consumer agenda = pursuing a consumer constituency. I am asserting that that equation is false. 
> 
> Haven't heard a single effective argument to the contrary yet. 
> 
> To quote the dearly departed Rita Rodin, we have to get beyond the "consumers - WOO HOO!" stage and think more carefully about what to DO. 
> Forming a constituency commits us all to a lot of work and politicking that is actually divisive, structurally complicated, fragmenting - without adding ANYTHING to our ability to pursue a consumer agenda. 
>