Hi,
> Conflict or confrontation between At Large and NCUC is weakening its role,
I do not see this conflict of confrontation. I see a few people in each
of the grouping who have difficulty with playing nicely with others, but
not any degree of conflict. Certainly not what existed in the past. In
fact we have many people who are members of both At large and NCSG -
not sure why you single out NCUC in your discussions.
The idea of a united and unified civil society is a pipe dream from way
back. Look at all of the civil society groupings that have existed
through time - except in times of extreme danger, we mostly have
problems with each other for ideological and tactical reasons. It is a
goal worth the efforts of enhanced cooperation, but it not a reason to
reorganize in ways that would weaken the aggregation called civil society.
I think that the organizational architecture of ICANN with a set of
groups that specialize and make policy recommendations, and groups of
generalists that give advice, is quite good and is not something to be
sacrificed. I think we are well along on desiloization by having opened
up WGs to everybody and by having cross community WGs when the concerns
were organization wide. These are the tools of enhanced cooperation.
I think it is a mistake to hearken everything back to the 3+1 Tunis
Agenda stakeholder group divisions. Human society divides itself among
along many axes, and the TA 3+1 model is just one. Individuals and
organizations can exist in more than one category at a time. I think
it is reasonable to say that the interests in gTLD are divided among
contracted parties and non contracted, and that these are further
subdivided. And it makes that Users remain undivided between commercial
and non commercial and focus on their geographical orientation and needs.
I think the real power comes in working together from our various
perspectives, not in becoming a single group. When we agree we can be
formidable, and when we don't we can move forward without needing
suppress any particular interest. I think that having civil society
people in many of the ICANN structure, Board, At-Large, GNSO, SSAC and
even some GAC delegations gives civil society a greater voice. In the
GNSO we not only have NCSG with its two constituencies, we have a
nascent non-commercial element in the Registry SG that should not be
ignored. Pushing for something that might ghettoize CS participating
in ICANN to match the model in internet governance would be worrisome.
Yes, we need continuous improvement at ICANN, and yes we need to find
ways for the civil society people, as defined by the Tunis Agenda and
IGOs, to cooperate as often as possible from their various points of
view and vantage points. But we do not need a revolution or
reorganization that decreases our scope or reach and pushes us into a
common corner that can be ignored.
The ALAC review has some good stuff and some brain dead stuff in it.
That was the case with the GNSO review as well. That is ok, as they are
(mostly) outsiders who do not necessarily understand what is going on.
How many people really understood any of our organizations after
studying them for 6 months and interviewing a small handful of people?
How may studies done unscientifically really manage to capture the
public opinion? These reviews give people a snapshot from outside and
can be useful if one looks at the output critically. At this point it is
worth making sure that those doing the review have as accurate picture
as they are capable of understanding. After it is final it will be time
for ICANN community to decide what to do with that report and its
recommendations: whether to implement parts because they are useful or
ignore them because they are nonsense. And given the degree of
bottom-up governance we attempt to have at ICANN, it will then be up to
At-large with the Board, as was done in the GNSO review, to decide what
to do next. Additonally this was a review of At large not NCSG (or even
NCUC), I would think any recommendations concerning NCSG are really just
unsubstantiated opinion, interesting but out of scope.
This is not the time for yet another revolution. Especially not one that
might serious weaken and hamper that loose aggregation called civil
society. What is useful is for us to talk and cooperate among ourselves.
avri
On 04-Feb-17 06:16, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Good point James,
>
> yes civil society, non-commercial & individual users should have both an advisory and a decision making role within ICANN´s ecosystem. My proposal is to move forward, not backwards. Time is ripe to strengthen the role of civil society/non-commercial users to (re-)balance the division of power among business, governments and technical community. Conflict or confrontation between At Large and NCUC is weakening its role, enhanced cooperation will strengthen it.
>
> I recognized that my proposed workstream 3 is not an issue for today or tomorrow. I have already changed my "ICANN 2020", which I proposed in Buenos Aires, to "ICANN 2025". If ICANNs reform in 2002 produced ICANN 2.0 and the IANA transition and its follow up (including workstream 2) will produce ICANN 3.0 than a structural reform under a WS 3 will be aimed at an ICANN 4.0. And this will take time. But it makes sense to have already here and now a discussion on the issue how civil society can enhanced its communication, coordination and collaboration within the ICANN ecosystem, looking beyond the narrow fences which has been grown over the years and have seperated stakholder groups and constituencies. Insofar the At Large Review makes a point which should not be ignored by NCUC.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: James Gannon [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Gesendet: Fr 03.02.2017 17:46
> An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: AW: [NCSG-Discuss] At-Large Review - new draft report
>
> 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
>>>> ************************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
