Thanks, Wendy.

To clarify my thoughts, my concern is not that I don't support Interest
Groups.  Rather, I think the community should be able to decide how it
wants to affiliate and if the community thinks Interest Groups are
important then the entire ICANN community should support that concept
throughout its lexicon, recommendations, messaging, policies, etc.  From
what I have seen, we aren't there.    

Debbie

-----Original Message-----
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 7:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Debbie's comments on the charter review

Regarding constituencies versus interest groups, I believe that the
Charter and the Stakeholder Group will be stronger if we have the
flexibility to form interest groups on a more fluid basis than
Constituencies have offered in the past.  I think Constituencies have
often served as silos, hindering consensus-building and changing too
slowly to reflect the dynamics of interests in Internet communications
and technology.  They focus us on exclusive definitions rather than
inclusion of those who want to contribute.

I support the concept of Interest Group as described in the current
draft.

--Wendy


Avri Doria wrote:
...
>>
>> About my comments:  My concern is that we should provide for
>> constituencies and I have inserted constituencies throughout.  The
Board
>> continues to recognize the constituency structure and has not
indicated
>> the level of support and recognition that will be given to Interest
>> Groups. Since it remains unclear what resources, standing and
>> recognition interests groups will have within the ICANN community (by
>> the Board, Staff, Work Groups/Teams, ACs, other constituencies and
SGs,
>> etc.), I think we should continue to recognize and support
>> constituencies and not dissolve them in this charter until the NCSG
>> receives clarity on that point.  I think we may be doing the NCUC and
>> non commercial users a disservice by converting constituencies into
>> Interest Groups without considering the ripple effect.  While those
of
>> you who have been involved with ICANN leadership much longer than I
may
>> have spoken with Board and staff about this issue, the Interest Group
>> concept is missing from the messaging and documents about ICANN
>> structure and engagement.  
> 
> 
> As was discussed when Rosemary made the same suggestion, the Board has
left this up to us.  If this is what the Stakeholder group wants, and
this is what I am understanding the consensus to be.  The Board wants to
see the charter thatNCSG wants to propose.  The Board has made this very
clear in discussion we have had with them - they are not limiting us to
the Staff's interpretation of the previous Board's viewpoint.
> 
> I also point out, that 2 Board approved Stakeholder Groups, albeit
transitional, already have charters that do not include Board approved
Constituencies.  But that is in sense beside the point.  It is up to the
consensus of the NCSG membership.
> 
> Additionally as Rafik mentioned in the previous discussion o tis
point, in the Stakeholder/Constituencies Work Team, they have left the
whole issue of support open for both Stakeholder Groups and
Constituencies - the choice being a bottom up choice within each group.
> 
> If I find that after you email, the consensus of the group has changed
and people agree with you that we should have constituencies instead of
Interest-Groups, I will change the charter accordingly.  However, at
this point without some evidence of a changed consensus, I cannot make
this particular change.
> 
> As I said it is up to the NCSG  to present the charter it wants to the
Board.  Should they decide that they want us to have constituencies,
they will send it back telling us so and we can discuss and negotiate
with them if we wish.  On the other hand if they accept the charter, as
I expect they will, then it is up to the Board, and the staff acting on
their will, to make sure that our Stakeholder Group with its
Interest-groups get the proper and equivalent level of support.  And it
will be up to our leadership to make sure that happens.  That is what it
means to have bottom process, approved by the Board and supported by the
Staff.
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask]
phone: +1.914.374.0613
Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/