Thanks, Cedric, these are very helpful comments. Those of us
enmeshed in ICANN acronyms often forget there is another world out
there where people might now what the GOTPDPWG stands for ;-)
Thanks,
Robin
On Aug 12, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Cedric Laurant wrote:
> Hi Robin, Milton and all,
>
> As the document will be part of a public campaign or, at least, be
> available publicly on the Internet for everyone to see, I would
> explain all the acronyms (GNSO, BGC, ALAC, SIC,...) and refer to
> them in an appendix, including the ones that seem obvious - but are
> not - for people who might not even know what ICANN stands for. I
> guess they are many people who, even though they are interested in
> knowing more about Internet governance issues, will stop reading
> the document after seeing so many acronyms, and its purpose will be
> lost for some of the people who could potentially register as new
> NCUC members.
>
> If this document is not only for ICANN staff/board and NCUC staff
> to see, I would change the wording to make it understandable for
> the average Joe. If opening up this procedural fairness debate to
> public debate is what the NCUC aims for, I would rewrite some of
> the paragraphs to make it much less hard to decipher.
>
> Example:
>
>> Myth 9
>> "Civil Society won't participate in ICANN under NCUC's charter
>> proposal."
>> False. ICANN staffers and others claim that civil society is
>> discouraged from engaging at ICANN because NCUC's charter proposal
>> does not guarantee GNSO Council seats to constituencies. The
>> facts could not be further from the truth. NCUC's membership
>> includes 142 noncommercial organizations and individuals. Since
>> 2008 NCUC's membership has increased by more 215% - largely in
>> direct response to civil society's support for the NCUC charter.
>> Not a single noncommercial organization commented in the public
>> comment forum that hard-wiring council seats to constituencies
>> will induce their participation in ICANN.
>
> I would modify the last sentence by:
> None of the noncommercial organizations that commented on the NCUC
> Charter said they would participate to ICANN only if NCUC's Charter
> secured the constituencies they would represent a seat on the GNSO
> Council.
>
>
> Another example:
>
>> Myth 10
>> "The purpose of a constituency is to have your very own GNSO
>> Councilor."
>> False. Some claim GNSO Council seats must be hard-wired to
>> specific constituencies because a constituency is meaningless
>> without a guaranteed GNSO Council representative. However this
>> interpretation fails to understand the role of constituencies in
>> the new GNSO, which is to give a voice and a means of
>> participation in the policy development process
>
> I would briefly explain here how does that participation works in
> practice.
>
>> -- not a guaranteed councilor who has little incentive to reach
>> beyond her constituency and find consensus with other
>> constituencies. Two of the other three stakeholder groups
>
> Which ones?
>> adopted NCUC's charter approach of decoupling GNSO Council seats
>> to constituencies, but NCUC has been prevented from electing its
>> councilors on a SG-wide basis.
>
> What is a "SG-wide basis"? I confess that after reading 2 weeks of
> emails on the NCUC discussion mailing list, I do not know what the
> acronym refers to. A quick search online dispelled my doubts, but
> the average reader of this document will not do it, and you will
> get him lost.
>
> I would also explain, at the end of the document, who the NCUC
> represents; that it indeed represents the average Joe, why he has
> to worry about what is happening, and what he can do to add his
> voice to the debate.
>
> Cedric
> ---
>> Thanks, Milton.
>>
>> I've added a couple more myths and suggested edits in the attached
>> document.
>>
>> All, please send in more comments and suggestions for refining
>> this document so we can publish it in the next few days.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> ?
>>
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2009, at 5:57 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> I have added a myth (one that I know Bd members are very
>>> concerned about) but we still need two others for our "top ten"
>>> list. Send in suggestions....
>>>
>>> See attached
>>> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [NCUC-
>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
>>> [[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 5:38 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Top Myths About the Civil Society
>>> NCSG Charter
>>>
>>> Robin, this is really useful.
>>> I would alter the order of some of them and change a few wordings
>>> to make them less defensive. Mind if I work on it a bit?
>>> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [NCUC-
>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
>>> [[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:44 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Top Myths About the Civil Society NCSG
>>> Charter
>>>
>>> I think it would be helpful if we came up with a document "top 10
>>> myths about the civil society NCSG charter" where we can list out
>>> all the various arguments we continually have to deal with that
>>> just don't apply to the facts. Here's a few just off the top of
>>> my head. We can build on it.
>>>
>>> "NCUC is not representative or diverse in its membership."
>>> False. NCUC represents 139 members including 74 noncommercial
>>> organizations and 65 individuals in 48 countries. NCUC has
>>> increased its membership by 210% since the parity principle was
>>> established in the BGC Report in 2008. The LSE Report of 2006
>>> showed NCUC was among the most diverse of any constituency and
>>> about as diverse as the Internet population. NCUC has grown
>>> considerably since this was documented.
>>>
>>> "We can't let the NCUC-Cabal have more power."
>>> False. NCUC represents an extremely broad and diverse membership
>>> and has shared council representation among its membership. The
>>> 2006 LSE Report documented that NCUC has the most number of
>>> different people serving on the GNSO Council over time and the
>>> highest turn-over of any of the 6 constituencies. It is the
>>> commercial constituency representatives who have held on to a
>>> single GNSO Council seat for nearly a decade making the claim
>>> NCUC is a "cabal" of one or two people. How's that for irony?
>>>
>>> "NCUC will not share council seats with other noncommercial
>>> constituencies."
>>> False. NCUC will dissolve and spin out into various splinter
>>> noncommercial constituencies in the NCSG. It does not make sense
>>> to have a "Noncommercial Users Constituency" and a "Noncommercial
>>> Stakeholders Group" as they are synonymous terms. Given the
>>> diversity and breadth of NCUC's membership, many vastly different
>>> constituencies are likely to spin-out with competing agendas.
>>> The organic self-forming approach to constituency formation is
>>> much better than the board/staff Soviet-style gerrymandering
>>> approach.
>>>
>>> "The NCUC wants to take away the board's right to approve
>>> constituencies."
>>> False. NCUC is happy to let the board approve or disapprove of
>>> constituencies. Our proposal simply offered to make a
>>> recommendation to the board based on objective criteria and for
>>> the board to make the decision.
>>>
>>> "ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil
>>> society drafted charter."
>>> False. An ALAC leader prefers the staff drafted charter and
>>> commented that she supports the staff drafted charter. ICANN
>>> staff ran away with this comment and told the ICANN Board of
>>> Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted charter. The ALAC
>>> leader also made some largely incoherent claims about previous
>>> ALAC comments supporting staff's charter (although no such
>>> charter draft existed for ALAC members to have previously
>>> commented on).
>>>
>>> "Civil society is divided on the NCSG charter issue."
>>> False. Staff told the ICANN Board that civil society is divided,
>>> but the overwhelming public comment has been in strong opposition
>>> to the ICANN drafted NCSG charter. Board members who rely on
>>> staff to tell them what to think probably believe civil society
>>> is divided. Those board members who have actually read the
>>> public comments for themselves know a very different story of the
>>> solidarity of civil society against what ICANN is trying to
>>> impose on noncommercial users.
>>>
>>> "Labeling public comments as 'letter writing campaigns' means you
>>> can ignore them."
>>> False. It is called "public comment period" because ICANN is
>>> supposed to listen to public comment. Even if public comments
>>> were prompted by the receipt of information and a call for
>>> action, ICANN is still supposed to listen to them. If anyone
>>> actually takes the time to read the comments submitted, they will
>>> see these are individually written and well thought out arguments
>>> from a broad range of noncommercial organizations individuals.
>>> ICANN's attempt to discount critical comments by labeling them a
>>> "letter writing campaign" does little to inspire further
>>> participation or confidence in ICANN public processes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IP JUSTICE
>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
>>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN.doc>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Milton.
>>
>> I've added a couple more myths and suggested edits in the attached
>> document.
>>
>> All, please send in more comments and suggestions for refining
>> this document so we can publish it in the next few days.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>> Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
>> x-mac-type=5738424E;
>> x-unix-mode=0644;
>> x-mac-creator=4D535744;
>> name=Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN.doc
>> Content-Disposition: attachment;
>> filename="Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation
>> in ICANN.doc"
>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Top Ten Myths About #2A48A2.doc
>> (W8BN/MSWD) (002A48A2)
>>
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2009, at 5:57 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>> I have added a myth (one that I know Bd members are very
>>> concerned about) but we still need two others for our "top ten"
>>> list. Send in suggestions....
>>>
>>> See attached
>>> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [NCUC-
>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
>>> [[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 5:38 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Top Myths About the Civil Society
>>> NCSG Charter
>>> Robin, this is really useful.
>>> I would alter the order of some of them and change a few wordings
>>> to make them less defensive. Mind if I work on it a bit?
>>>
>>> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [NCUC-
>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
>>> [[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:44 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Top Myths About the Civil Society NCSG
>>> Charter
>>> I think it would be helpful if we came up with a document "top 10
>>> myths about the civil society NCSG charter" where we can list out
>>> all the various arguments we continually have to deal with that
>>> just don't apply to the facts. Here's a few just off the top of
>>> my head. We can build on it.
>>>
>>> "NCUC is not representative or diverse in its membership."
>>> False. NCUC represents 139 members including 74 noncommercial
>>> organizations and 65 individuals in 48 countries. NCUC has
>>> increased its membership by 210% since the parity principle was
>>> established in the BGC Report in 2008. The LSE Report of 2006
>>> showed NCUC was among the most diverse of any constituency and
>>> about as diverse as the Internet population. NCUC has grown
>>> considerably since this was documented.
>>>
>>> "We can't let the NCUC-Cabal have more power."
>>> False. NCUC represents an extremely broad and diverse membership
>>> and has shared council representation among its membership. The
>>> 2006 LSE Report documented that NCUC has the most number of
>>> different people serving on the GNSO Council over time and the
>>> highest turn-over of any of the 6 constituencies. It is the
>>> commercial constituency representatives who have held on to a
>>> single GNSO Council seat for nearly a decade making the claim
>>> NCUC is a "cabal" of one or two people. How's that for irony?
>>>
>>> "NCUC will not share council seats with other noncommercial
>>> constituencies."
>>> False. NCUC will dissolve and spin out into various splinter
>>> noncommercial constituencies in the NCSG. It does not make sense
>>> to have a "Noncommercial Users Constituency" and a "Noncommercial
>>> Stakeholders Group" as they are synonymous terms. Given the
>>> diversity and breadth of NCUC's membership, many vastly different
>>> constituencies are likely to spin-out with competing agendas.
>>> The organic self-forming approach to constituency formation is
>>> much better than the board/staff Soviet-style gerrymandering
>>> approach.
>>>
>>> "The NCUC wants to take away the board's right to approve
>>> constituencies."
>>> False. NCUC is happy to let the board approve or disapprove of
>>> constituencies. Our proposal simply offered to make a
>>> recommendation to the board based on objective criteria and for
>>> the board to make the decision.
>>>
>>> "ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil
>>> society drafted charter."
>>> False. An ALAC leader prefers the staff drafted charter and
>>> commented that she supports the staff drafted charter. ICANN
>>> staff ran away with this comment and told the ICANN Board of
>>> Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted charter. The ALAC
>>> leader also made some largely incoherent claims about previous
>>> ALAC comments supporting staff's charter (although no such
>>> charter draft existed for ALAC members to have previously
>>> commented on).
>>>
>>> "Civil society is divided on the NCSG charter issue."
>>> False. Staff told the ICANN Board that civil society is divided,
>>> but the overwhelming public comment has been in strong opposition
>>> to the ICANN drafted NCSG charter. Board members who rely on
>>> staff to tell them what to think probably believe civil society
>>> is divided. Those board members who have actually read the
>>> public comments for themselves know a very different story of the
>>> solidarity of civil society against what ICANN is trying to
>>> impose on noncommercial users.
>>>
>>> "Labeling public comments as 'letter writing campaigns' means you
>>> can ignore them."
>>> False. It is called "public comment period" because ICANN is
>>> supposed to listen to public comment. Even if public comments
>>> were prompted by the receipt of information and a call for
>>> action, ICANN is still supposed to listen to them. If anyone
>>> actually takes the time to read the comments submitted, they will
>>> see these are individually written and well thought out arguments
>>> from a broad range of noncommercial organizations individuals.
>>> ICANN's attempt to discount critical comments by labeling them a
>>> "letter writing campaign" does little to inspire further
>>> participation or confidence in ICANN public processes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IP JUSTICE
>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
>>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN.doc>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> --
> Cedric Laurant, Esq.
> Researcher, GECTI (Grupo de Estudios en Internet, Comercio
> Electrónico,
> Telecomunicaciones & Informática), Universidad de los Andes (http://
> gecti.uniandes.edu.co/)
> Carrera 1 No. 18A-10 - Bogota, D.C. (COLOMBIA)
> <[log in to unmask]> - Skype: cedrichl
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/cedriclaurant
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
|