I do not think that NCUC should have an advisory capacity, it should have a decision making capacity such as it has right now within the GNSO, the level of influence can be debated but a step from decision making to advisory would be backwards step in my (simple) mind.
-James
On 03/02/2017, 17:41, "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Yes, Milton, this is partly true. But the reason for the abolishment of the election was not that the wrong people were elected. In the process it became clear that the proposed mechanism for elections can be easily caputered (look at Asia and Latin America) and there will be a problem if not only 200 000 voters but 2 or 20 million voters will participate. To send 20 million real letters by s-mail with the password would need a budgetr of about 10 million. The idea to allow only domainnameholders (instead of e-mail address holder) to participate in the elections, as proposed by the Bildt Commission in September 2001, was rejected, inter alia also by the civil society, with the argument that this is like in the middle ages where only landowners had a right to vote.
>
>But again this is history and you are right, that At Large did not remain the main place for civil society. NCUC filled partly the gap, but it is only a constituency in the GNSO and does not have an own advisory capacity. This is one reason why I have proposed to rethink (under WS 3) a restructuring of ICANN as a whole, not only a restructung of GNSO or ALAC. But lert´s first finish WS 2.
>
>w
>
>
>
>
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Mueller, Milton L
>Gesendet: Fr 03.02.2017 17:02
>An: [log in to unmask]
>Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] At-Large Review - new draft report
>
>But Wolfgang, the elections were abolished. (The wrong people won the elections).
>Civil society was disempowered and at large turned into an ICANN-managed playpen.
>So yes, let's not forget history.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>> Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 4:01 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: AW: [NCSG-Discuss] At-Large Review - new draft report
>>
>> Don´t forget history. In the original plan of the first Bylaws from 1998 "At
>> Large" was the place for civil society/individual users. The At Large election
>> was driven by activities of civil society groups. This played also a crucial role in
>> the early phase of WSIS where ICANNs At Large was the driving force behind
>> the CS IG Caucus. (see attachment)
>>
>> wolfgang
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Olévié Kouami
>> Gesendet: Do 02.02.2017 22:34
>> An: [log in to unmask]
>> Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] At-Large Review - new draft report
>>
>> The competition is coming very soon, i imagine.
>> Wait and see.
>> Le 2 févr. 2017 12:52, "Norbert Klein" <[log in to unmask]> a écrit :
>>
>> > +1
>> >
>> > Thanks Bill:
>> > "I am puzzled that the section starts out by saying, "we have noted
>> > that there is a widely shared perception of duplication, even of
>> > outright competition between At-Large and the GNSO's Non-Commercial
>> > Users Constituency (NCUC) - and to a certain extent, with the
>> > Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC)."
>> >
>> > "I don't know among whom these are "widely shared" perceptions..., but
>> > in my 3 years as NCUC chair I never experienced any duplication or
>> > competition. I can't see how such vague assertions unconnected to
>> > anything real are helpful."
>> >
>> >
>> > Norbert Klein
>> >
>> >
>> > On 1.2.2017 11:37 PM, William Drake wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > On Feb 1, 2017, at 16:43, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]
>> > <[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On the ICANN wiki, ICANN staff have uploaded a new draft of the report
>> > of the Review of the At-Large Community. You can read it in PDF format
>> here:
>> > https://community.icann.org/display/ALRW/Review+of+the+
>> > ICANN+At-Large+Community+-+Draft+Report+for+Public+Comment
>> >
>> > The report will open for public comment today, and I think it is
>> > important we respond (and also read it closely to see whether or not
>> > there are any lessons we can learn, ahead of the GNSO Review). To aid
>> > us in drafting our comments, I am going to compare the changes in this
>> > second draft against those from the initial report released in
>> > December - before members of the At-Large Review Working Party
>> > requested signifiant revisions - and I'll try to produce a redlined
>> > version, which I'll share on our list. The initial draft was an honest
>> > assessment of At-Large. A cursory glance at the revisions in this new
>> > draft suggests the inclusion of flowery language praising the current
>> > leadership of At-Large for their stewardship of the community over
>> > time; I hope the original recommendations have not been materially
>> > toned down, but I haven't read the report close enough just yet to assess
>> whether or not this is the case.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks Ayden for the offer. I hope that in any comment we submit we
>> > bring a little clarity to the section on "Mission overlap with NCUC &
>> > NPOC." I am puzzled that the section starts out by saying, "we have
>> > noted that there is a widely shared perception of duplication, even of
>> > outright competition between At-Large and the GNSO's Non-Commercial
>> > Users Constituency (NCUC) - and to a certain extent, with the
>> > Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC)." I don't know
>> among whom these are "widely shared"
>> > perceptions (feels a bit like the Westlake Report all over again), but
>> > in my 3 years as NCUC chair I never experienced any duplication or
>> > competition. I can't see how such vague assertions unconnected to
>> > anything real are helpful. Moreover, the authors say the differences
>> > between NCSG and ALAC are simply that
>> >
>> > . - The role of the ALAC is to provide advice on policy and other
>> > issues being discussed within ICANN that have implications for end users.
>> > . - The role of NCUC and NPOC, as constituencies of the
>> > Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) within the GNSO, is to provide
>> > policy advice related to work of the policy- development function
>> > within the GNSO
>> >
>> > One would think that the fact that At Large is a multistakeholder
>> > formation with a lot of folks from various commercial parts of the
>> > community merits mention. Of course there are civil society folks
>> > there too and some of us have participated extensively in AL, but on
>> > the whole we are talking about very different beasts, and not simply
>> > because of the AC/SO roles.
>> >
>> > Sigh.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > Bill
>> >
>> >
>> > ************************************************
>> > William J. Drake
>> > International Fellow & Lecturer
>> > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>> > University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> > [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
>> > www.williamdrake.org
>> > ************************************************
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
|
