Dear Avri,

I agree with your note to the Council that perhaps the "commercial" members of the GNSO might not be best suited to help in developing the new NCSG.  However, some kind of coalition or discussion group beyond the existing NCUC is absolutely necessary.  

The fault may be entirely mine, but discussion within NCUC of building a NCSG that realistically shares power with groups holding differing viewpoints has consistently failed.  They may not agree with my ideas on how to approach the problem (which is entirely fair), but they have not offered alternatives to the specific problems I highlight in the explanations of the Alternative Charter.  They obviously realize that a vast number of non-commercial users who do not align with the positions taken by the NCUC with respect to free speech and anonymity.  For whatever reason, the NCUC structure has been ineffective in presenting meaningful input from these competing interests.  But the proposed charter replicates the NCUC on a larger scale.  Thus, a broader range of participants is necessary to look at these issues from an objective perspective.  

I found 6 - 7 other academics willing to be involved in representing some of these other veiw points and joining a new constituency.  They made an attempt to ask Milton on the NCUC list for a comparison between the two proposed charters.  (See list archive http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0811&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&F=&S=&P=10179), http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0811&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&F=&S=&P=10268, http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0811&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&F=&S=&P=10357.) They were told it was too late, they don't have enough experience, they don't understand the politics and power issues of ICANN, etc.  (See, e.g., list archive http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0811&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&F=&S=&P=10437, and response from Mary (copied below) that I can't find on the list archive.)  Clearly, unless something changes, the only hope for making progress in composing a realistic GNSG is to involve others who will not be intimidated by claims that they don't have enough ICANN history to understand.

I think the ALAC is indisputably an appropriate partner in conceiving of a new NCSG.  In addition, we need input from others with history in the GNSO who can respond to claims about how it works.  They way to increase participation is to ask for a breadth of representation in developing a new structure.

If there is ANYONE on the NCUC list (or otherwise) who would be interested in discussing how the NCSG can include alternative viewpoints or address the specifics of the current NCUC proposed charter, please come forward.

Cheryl B. Preston
Edwin M. Thomas
Professor of Law
J. Reuben Clark Law School
Brigham Young University
434 JRCB
Provo, UT 84602
(801) 422-2312
[log in to unmask]

>>> Mary Wong <[log in to unmask]> 11/30/2008 11:54 pm >>>
Hello everyone

I'd like to add my own note of welcome to all new members, whose voice
and expertise I personally am looking forward to benefiting from. As
Norbert has done, I'd like also to introduce myself briefly and to do
what I can to clarify what's been happening at/within ICANN and NCUC.

Along with Bill Drake (who, with others who have long been involved in
Internet governance issues, is currently flying the flag for
bottom-up,
multistakeholder involvement at the IGF in Hyderabad) I was recently
elected as a new NCUC representative to the GNSO Council (joining
Carlos
Affonso de Pereira from Brazil). As many of you know, I pledged to
respect and further open discussion of what at times are disparate
voices, disagreements and differing priorities/issues amongst us,
while
trying my best to craft a representative and - if possible - unified
viewpoint to other constituencies and groups within ICANN. Unlike the
other GNSO constituencies, NCUC is unique in that our members will not
always have similar views on many issues; this, unfortunately, can
also
be our "weakness" (and I will explain what I mean by this below).

Although I have less personal experience/involvement in ICANN than
many
of you (especially Milton, Norbert, Robin, Carlos and others) my
recent
observations and experiences (from Paris and Cairo, and now - wading
daily through over a dozen (often more) lengthy emails and numerous
conference calls/requests regarding GNSO work) are as follows, first
on
GNSO/ICANN and then on the ongoing NCUC/NCSG process. 

1. GNSO/ICANN

- I can't overly emphasize how vital it is for all NCUC members to
realize that we are often a group "under siege" by better-funded, more
unified (for having more clearly aligned - usually commercial -
interests) constituencies/groups, including - and sometimes especially
-
within the GNSO.

- The main reason for this lies mostly with the fact that, as our name
implies, we are there to represent the non-commercial users (whether
institutions or individuals); as such, NCUC is often the only
forum/voice for individuals and non-business interests to discuss
fundamental public policy issues such as fair and open Internet
access/neutrality.  

- NCUC's Councillors generally endeavor to speak and vote according to
what we perceive - largely through feedback mechanisms such as this
listserv - to be the prevailing view (and if possible, consensus)
amongst NCUC members. While we three each cast individual votes, we
try
as far as possible to discuss and coordinate our actions and views. We
also know there will be times where there is no NCUC view or
consensus;
at such times, we try our best to discern an objective and fair
viewpoint to take. Should any NCUC member believe that any of our
votes
or speeches misrepresent the constituency view or are otherwise
unsupported/insupportable, we hope you will not hesitate to raise the
matter publicly (e.g. on this listserv.)

- ICANN is a hugely complex, and dare I say intimidatingly
bureaucratized, organization: not only are there multiple issues
(ranging from technical standards to public policy) being worked on at
once, but deadlines are usually tight, and coordination often
difficult
to achieve. This often also means that the better-funded and
professionally-staffed constituencies can muster views and positions
much more quickly and consistently than NCUC (since most if not all of
us do ICANN work on top of our regular jobs.) As I said before, my
view
therefore is that it's crucial for NCUC (or whatever group ultimately
represents non-commercial users at ICANN) to present a coherent and,
if
possible, unified public viewpoint, as this makes our position
stronger
and our views more likely to make an impact.

2. On the NCUC/NCSG question

- Milton and (I believe) Konstantinos has already outlined the
background and timelines involved in this, so let me just add my
personal belief that this is one issue where NCUC members CANNOT
afford
to appear fragmented and disunited. With the backgrorestructuring (and
recalling the recent, fraught and difficult battle
over the number of votes per existing constituency in the new
bicameral
house structure), the political reality is that it is entirely
possible
that a diffused and weakened Non-Commercial user group will mean less
influence and respect in the restructured GNSO.

- Let me add also that it is currently UNCLEAR what the relationship
between the proposed new Stakeholder Groups and constituencies will
be.
None of the official ICANN studies or documents discuss (much less
resolve) this question, making it all the more important that there be
a
unified, strong Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that will continue to
represent - and fight - for non-commercial voices and interests.

- I support Milton's proposal for a number of reasons, including the
very strong impression I got in Cairo that it would greatly benefit
NCUC/NCSG to submit a formal proposal to the Board as early as it
could
possibly do so. The draft proposal was what was discussed and (as a
result) modified, and it was the modified document that was submitted
within the designated time period.

- Finally, and returning briefly to the "platform" upon which I asked
for all of your support in the Council, it is absolutely critical that
the Non-Commercial user group does NOT allow itself to be divided into
multiple and different groups that do not have a formal vote in the
new
GNSO structure. Milton's proposal has the benefit of allowing not just
the formation of new constituencies WITHIN a strong Non-Commercial
Stakeholder Group (NCSG), it also gives those new constituencies a
voice
and vote within the NCSG AND avoids the fragmentation and consequent
weakening of our "external positioning" that I have already mentioned.

With apologies for the length of this post,

Mary