Hi Rafik,

I really wish the recording captured the meeting from its start and
everyone spoke to the mic. everyone would have had a chance to listen
in into the conversation first hand. I wonder how the 'official'
report of this meeting will look like?

Anyway, it was great to attend given our "welcoming to NCSG"
recommendation on the last para of our comments.

I recall questions asked primarily focussed on defending their
business-interests linkages, saying were involved with "non-profits."
I believe my responses on record ( supported by two others in the
room) explain "non-profit" is not a sufficiently qualifying criteria.
Urged for a critical look at those organisations' members primary
interests giving an example of local TESPOK ".. is a professional,
non-profit organization representing the interests of
Telecommunication service providers in Kenya" http://www.tespok.or.ke/

Given their admission of close relationship with telcos, I explained
that was NOT accusing them of receiving money form such groups. But I
pointed out a local case where I had been approached on a US$ 250,000
'users rights project' by local representatives of similar
'non-profit' group, which I decline to participate on because their
its 'ownership' condition that I found wanting. i.e. ICT Consumers
Association of Kenya was to be involved but they were to be the
overall lead.

Regards NOT involving us, they said that they had created a space on
their website for NCSG to populate.

And that before approving CC - that the Board had committed resources
with the hope that the different stakeholders would 'talk to each
other' thus at Seoul and now Nairobi.

What was NEVER asked was about geo-diversity. I did not raise the matter.

Generally regards consumers participation at ICANN, Staff reported
that the Board's intention was to 're-energize NCSG' (following SIC
recommendations)

Maybe I we should look for amplifiers to hear what others said in the
background?

regards,

Alex

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> Thank you for attending the potential consumer constituency, I guess that
> you had a lot of fun there.
> can you please tell us what are the questions directed to joint comments
> that you and  I have made during public comments
> (http://forum.icann.org/lists/consumers-constituency-petition/msg00007.html)
> Regards
> Rafik
>
> 2010/3/10 Alex Gakuru <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> In extending outreach to and constructive engagement with other
>> stakeholders, today I attended the 'Potential Consumer Constituency'
>> meeting.
>>
>> Glad I did! Because several questions were directed at me in
>> connection to the public comments I sent on during the consulation
>> period on their proposal. Thus it was a great chance to give detailed
>> explanations on each as requested.
>>
>> It was reported that the Business Constituency and Intellectual
>> Property Constituency supported the idea of a separate "Proposed
>> Consumer Constituency" to which I responded that I found it strange
>> why those two supported and even advised how they considered that the
>> proposed consumer constituency should be operated. Explaining business
>> interests stakeholders are not well-known as be 'consumer  partners'
>> to the extent of their suggesting the form/path consumer protection
>> should follow in ICANN.
>>
>> I floated the idea of inviting them to join NCSG's Consumer Interest
>> Group "in-formation" (if its possible for them at this point in time
>> or in future).
>>
>> Overall, for the first time I got to meet and interact with the
>> stakeholders behind pushing for it. An avenue for future communication
>> was established and all present were requested to give their email
>> addresses presumably to be contacted in future.
>>
>> One may download the recording at http://nbo.icann.org/node/8931. To
>> hear sections of the proceedings and only those that spoke to the
>> microphone.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Alex
>
>