Hi Mary,

Okay, now all this is coming back and my understanding is being really
cleared up. Now my final question, what is the proposed date that may
have come forward by the board for finalizing our/NCUC proposed NCSG
charter so all that has been explained will evolve?

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Mary Wong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Fouad,
>
> The overwhelming majority of NCUC members have opposed the linking of
> constituencies with voting seats on the Council. Not only would this
> tying-together prove operationally impossible once the number of
> constituencies exceeded six (which is the total number of Council seats
> allocated to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG), it is also a poor
> motivator for sincere participation, and will most likely lead to
> in-fighting and fractiousness that would divide the NCSG and seriously mute
> its voice and effectiveness within ICANN.
>
> In any case, the role of the Council in the new GNSO structure (a bicameral
> house with 4 Stakeholder Groups) has been envisioned to be substantially
> different from the previous framework. In the new structure, the
> Council functions more as a managerial body - the real policy work
> (including the positions taken, negotiations required and consensus
> built) will take place in the Working Groups and not the Council.
>
> The concept of Interest Groups is as bottom-up and participatory - possibly
> even more so - as a traditional ICANN Constituency. It does not require a
> group with a sufficiently well-defined non-commercial interest (e.g.
> education, development, consumer protection) to be approved by the ICANN
> Board before working together on those issues; it does not lead to
> structural problems with the Stakeholder Group framework; and it does not
> force members into competing "silos" even when they have overlapping
> interests.
>
> As you know, in Seoul, the ICANN Board met with the NCUC to discuss ways in
> which the Interim NCSG Charter drafted by the Board's Structural
> Improvements Committee (SIC) could function in the transition to a
> fully-negotiated final charter agreed between the Board, SIC and the new
> NCSG. Because the Board continues to search for ways to better and more
> deeply involve new entrants to ICANN (including all our new NCUC
> members) and to ensure that a wide range of non-commercial interests are
> fully represented, Interest Groups would be a simple, direct and effective
> way to achieve those objectives without the dangers (as mentioned
> previously) of the "silo" model or requiring any change in the overall
> Stakeholder Group framework.
>
> As envisioned during the NCSG meeting in Seoul, it is possible that Interest
> Groups may, in time, become Constituencies upon application to the Board and
> gaining its approval. Many of us believe that this process should be
> naturally-occurring rather than imposed by rule upon the formation of
> an Interest Group. You may wish to note, in particular, that the concept of
> Interest Groups is not peculiar to the NCSG - the Registry SG, for example,
> has the concept in its charter; and that the new GNSO structure of a
> bicameral house is based on the notion of SGs rather than Constituencies.
>
> In sum, therefore, bottom-up and diverse participation in ICANN is far more
> likely to be achieved within the new GNSO structure if people move away from
> the idea that having a voting Council seat is the objective of, or motivator
> for, participation.
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
>
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs
> Franklin Pierce Law Center
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
> at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>
>>>> Fouad Bajwa <[log in to unmask]> 11/11/2009 3:40 PM >>>
> Hi Milton,
>
> I needed that advice to clear up me mind (don't mind the pirate lingo
> please)!
>
> I am yes for an "Internet Governance Constituency" *(that was my
> earlier perception that now changes to) and now to be called the
> "Internet Governance Interest Group" but my confusion stands to its
> role within the bottom-up structure that I can't seem to figure out is
> that with the NCUC seats elected and represented in the gnso, how do
> the new interest groups play the role in ICANN. Will they be called
> NCUC or NCUC interest groups or NCSG Internet Governance Interest
> Group and how will they move from bottom-up into voting positions.
>
> * Internet Governance Interest Group might be felt as a pin stab in
> the spine here.............its just an example for the moment........
>
> Will you be in Sharam tomorrow Milton?
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>I'd also be up for working with you on organizing the future
>>>development interest group that you have shared within the NCSG. By
>>>the way, what is the process of setting up new constituencies under
>>>the NCSG charter? Can you point me to the documents?
>>
>> Fouad:
>> It is best to think of them as "interest groups" -- now, and possibly
>> indefinitely.
>> The idea of an interest group makes it clear that it is based on the
>> initiative of the people involved, and bottom up.
>>
>> The concept of "constituency" is laden with all kinds of undesirable
>> baggage at the moment. It also has all kinds of top-down implications (i.e.,
>> must be approved by the Board, etc.) Some people seem to believe that
>> creating or calling it a constituency somehow magically multiplies its
>> power. In your case, you can see how you are already delayed by looking for
>> "documents." Why do you need "documents?"
>>
>> In fact, either you have people willing and able to do things or you
>> don't. If you do, there are all kinds of opportunities for participation and
>> action that can be constructive. If you don't, it doesn't matter what any
>> document says about "setting up new constituencies," etc.
>>
>> I would urge you to use the Ning site to formulate any new interest group
>> (and the NCUC meeting already agreed to help create a development-oriented
>> interest group at the Seoul meeting). That way, it is transparent to the
>> membership and everyone knows where it is and who is part of it and how to
>> join. If you go off by yourself and form your own private mailing list
>>
>> Milton Mueller
>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
>> ------------------------------
>> Internet Governance Project:
>> http://internetgovernance.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> Advisor & Researcher
> ICT4D & Internet Governance
> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
> My Blog: Internet's Governance
> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> Follow my Tweets:
> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
> MAG Interview:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
Advisor & Researcher
ICT4D & Internet Governance
Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
My Blog: Internet's Governance
http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets:
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
MAG Interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA