At 12:25 PM -0400 8/16/09, Avri Doria wrote:
>On 16 Aug 2009, at 11:33, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>> We want to make a strong and unified statement so if you have any
>> objections let us know quickly. We need to get this before the Board
>> soon. Please avoid proposing minor wordsmithing changes; this is
>> pretty much a yes or no proposition at this point.
>
>
>Yes, I support the EC sending this letter.
>
>(though it does need further proof reading before sending)
>
>a.


I actually made time to read through the whole thing in detail on a lazy
Sunday afternoon.  FWIW, I'm in, yes.

Dan

PS:  Jorge's question seems to me an important one to consider in
conjunction with this letter, though I think it should not at all prevent
the letter from going out promptly:  what does NCUC do if the Board denies
this request?  If not just walk out (and, I assume, then actively
communicate broadly to media and others the illegitimacy of ICANN
governance structures/procedures -- this has to be very visible publicly
for maximum impact, with a goal to bring meaningful external political
pressure upon ICANN), what then?

Trying to "have any *real* representation of non-commercial users at ICANN"
when such representation is systematically, structurally hobbled seems sort
of like a 'square-the-circle' proposition.

What is lost by a walk-out (does NCUC lose a "legitimate" platform to claim
wrongdoing? -- does it lose any significant insider access to ICANN's
policy machinations, such as communications with staff?), and what is lost
by staying in (does it re-legitimize the SIC/Staff's expanded power grab
and acquiesce to the increasingly profound ineffectuality of the current
NCUC in influencing any ICANN policy moving forward?).

So the question to reply to Jorge's is:

If the Board rejects this proposal, what *real* representation of
non-commercial users at ICANN is possible "within the system" given the
status quo?  Assuming it is nonzero, is it enough of an advantage to
balance the potentials from walking out and making a big stink, to try to
bring external pressure to bear upon ICANN (ultimately via the NTIA, or
even with respect to an alternate or competing root system)?


New members of NCUC must find all of this rather bewildering (a common
component of the overall ICANN experience, I must say).  Join up just to
walk out?  Yet, whatever collective entity walks out of ICANN obviously can
still remain organized if it so chooses, and as a collective force it can
wield influence with regard to ICANN, even if it is "from outside" rather
than "from inside" the institution.  The strategies and tactics may vary,
but the collective force remains in either case -- there is power in
numbers.  And the boundary of "outside" from "inside" with regard to ICANN
governance structure is as fuzzy as it gets anywhere.

So far, ICANN meetings are still open to the public, so everyone who
attended them in the past as part of NCUC should still be able to attend
them as part of "the former NCUC" and anyone on the Board may still meet
with them on their own recognizance, I presume (replace private meeting
spaces with public spaces, at future events -- with any private meetings
being held off-site, or even virtually).  At this stage, I wonder if such
"informal" participation would be significantly less influential than
"formal" participation, given how NCUC's formal participation seems to be
losing influence as it is.  It's not as if ICANN is reimbursing NCUC
members for travel/lodging costs.

If any current NCUC funding depends on its formal place in the ICANN
"advisory cloud" then that funding would need to be replaced to sustain
current NCUC operations.  I don't know how big a deal that really is, at
this point.

And, there is always the possibility of looking for ways to "formally"
participate simultaneously via the At-large group, such as it is.  The flip
side to ICANN being so weirdly spread out in terms of governance structure
is that, ironically, it presents a multitude of entry points to engage the
organization.


Bottom line:  In order for the carrot to be addressed seriously, there may
need to be at least an implication of a stick with some undesirable
consequences for the Board.  Walking out, without further coordinated and
strategic action aimed at ICANN, may not be much of a stick.  OTOH, it may
be neither here nor there (if the current degree of internal influence is
negligible), while opening up previously unutilized possibilities for
external action that would be less appropriate coming from an official
"insider" group.

The implied stick would be:  "Don't make us walk out.  It will free us up
to be increasingly impolite, and non-consensual.  We might even grow our
membership more strongly as a result.  It could certainly become more
explicitly political, and bring ICANN further out of the shadows into more
general public discourse.   We've actually been pulling our punches as long
as we are part of the formal advisory structure of governance, attempting
to participate within the culture of consensus.  When we walk out, we will
have no such constraints.  But we will still be here, in your face, and
with the legitimacy of our historical role at ICANN talking increasingly to
the general public, shaping perceptions of ICANN as an institution of
public governance that is unaccountable to the public interest, and
powerfully controlled by narrow special interests."


This is just one person's opinion and thoughts, of course.


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