>In Kenya, we have a rich history of government-business 'steakholders'
>denial that we even exist.. How are we meant to be financially endowed
>to pull clout like them telecoms-government affiliates?
>
>Should consumers be part ICANN's ever-praised politico-business class
>they apparently ever seeks for? Who is a consumer? The little guy

Alex,
You have hit the nail on the head! From China and Hong Kong, I too am familiar with this game of "official" representation, where the "representatives" are singled out by the powerful precisely because they are the ones who are careful and cozy to the ones in power and unwilling to rock the boat. 

As for your letter, yes, please do it. I'll be glad to help you polish it. Unfortunately, the US government (at least the Congressional Democrats) seem more interested in U.S. stakeholders these days but it can't hurt to go over their heads. 

--MM


________________________________________

without a voice in a corporate-government interests dominated world
internet network-both claiming to act in the "best interests of the
consumer" (or public interest)? At the core are vested interests that
want to make the Internet for big bigs and that's not right.

Vint Cerf built and handed over a consumer-receptive ICANN - one whose
current leadership cannot help but rubbish the little guy's voice on
the internet? A "bottom-up" ICANN is all I knew and cared about.

I am tempted to write an email from Nairobi to President Obama
complaining about NCUC mistreatment by ICANN. Would it be appropriate?
 I need your advice. Would you like me to send my draft on-list for
the NCUC Editor to polish it up?

Alex

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Robin Gross<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> What is also troubling is that our existing membership already includes many
> members from these categories.   We have at least dozen consumer
> organizations - many members of the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue and
> several new African consumer groups, so they are here.  Many just don't have
> the budgets internally to make ICANN a priority - it is expensive to fly
> around the world every few months and pay for $20 club sandwiches at the
> Hilton.
> What ICANN is looking for are "consumer groups" who are in fact funded by
> business - and not true noncommercial organizations, but this will take away
> a noncommercial council seat.  Another chip away from noncommercial users
> rights.
> The comment about libraries - we have libraries too.  We are proud that
> Egypt's Library of Alexandria is a new member of NCUC - one of the members
> that ICANN doesn't think deserves a vote for lack of "representation" and
> "diversity".   The irony of this barely 10-yr old Internet organization
> telling the ancient Library of Alexandria it doesn't deserve a vote on
> Internet policy is beyond arrogance.  It is dangerous.    ICANN staff would
> drive the Internet into the ground if that is what it took to control it.
> Robin
>
> On Aug 6, 2009, at 3:16 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
> At 11:17 AM +0200 8/6/09, 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.
>
> Bill, I know the NCUC membership has been growing, both organizations and
> individuals.  But I got the impression ICANN was hoping (expecting)
> participation from groups representing new non-commercial players, and also
> larger national and international representative organizations. I think the
> commercial side of the user house was expecting this too, at least that's
> how I read some of the emails.
> Example in the library space, ALA has been a member for many years, but
> there are hundreds of similar organizations around the world, and then
> there's IFLA <http://www.ifla.org/>
> There's been a lot of talk about consumer organizations: most countries have
> a national consumer organization, or many industry/sector related groups,
> and there are regional and international bodies (Consumers International,
> Jeremy Malcolm now works for).  These organizations are being encouraged to
> form a constituency in their own right, but that shouldn't stop them
> transitioning from the NCUC, or NCUC trying to help that constituency to
> form.
> Each year the board selects a member of the NomCom to represent "Academia &
> Research" (you'd think an NCUC related group).  They just selected a guy
> called Jan Gruntorád, CEO of CESNET, the Academic research network for the
> Czech Republic. Past selections have been people with similar backgrounds,
> large academic R&D networks (NRENs). Board obviously feels that it's a
> non-commercial community not represented in the NCUC (except for KAIST.)
> Very difficult to sell ICANN to these types of organization, I don't see the
> board being able to do a good job of this without help, and the NCUC could
> do well by offering to help.  It'll take outreach and money.
> About Nick's comment.  Perhaps an example of people forgetting what was
> actually in the NCUC proposal because we've not been asked to discuss it,
> just concentrating on the SIC.
> Adam
>
> 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]
>
>
>