Cheryl, Your unwillingness to tell us your own agenda for ICANN led me to inquire myself. I note your two recent submissions to the IGF detailing your proposal to follow the example of the trademark industry and use ICANN as a pinch-point to impose a particular set of policy values on the Internet community. "ICANN can: Contracts and Porn Sites" http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_2nd_IGF/Cheryl%20Preston_ICANN%20Can_Contracts%20and%20Porn%20Sites.pdf "Children and Internet Pornography: The Nature of the Problem and the Technologies for a Solution" http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_2nd_IGF/Children%20and%20Internet%20Pornography_The%20Nature%20of%20the%20Problem%20%20and%20the%20Technologies.pdf Robin Robin Gross wrote: > Cheryl, > > I'm puzzled how you can ask us to vote for you to be our leader and > refuse to state your policy objectives on issues the constituency > works on. > NCUC is made up of various organizations with a diversity of > viewpoints that find a common constituency position for issues in the > GNSO. The policy positions that the constituency takes in the GNSO > process are directly derived from the positions of the constituency's > various individual organizations. So we have every right to ask in > which direction you would lead us? And I'm concerned that you don't > trust us enough to tell us your views. > > One must understand how policy is made at ICANN (with constituencies > *taking* positions that are negotiated with other constituencies to > reach a consensus). So to say NCUC should be "neutral" on policy > issues is like saying we should abdicate our responsibility in the > GNSO to protect the interests on non-commercial users and the public > interest. Certainly we cannot simply leave it up to the businesses to > work out policies that will protect consumer rights and fundamental > freedoms as you suggest. > > The most significant policy issue that NCUC has been engaged in for > the last 7 years, reform of ICANN's whois database policy (so it will > comply with privacy laws), is up for an important vote at the LA > meeting. The process has been at a stalemate for years and could very > well continue that way for years more. This policy issue is a key > concern for our constituency and we need to find an endgame that > protects the privacy rights of Internet users. Since you think the > only requirement for leadership in NCUC is being "new", how will your > "new" perspective lead us to a whois endgame that protects privacy? > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > Cheryl Preston wrote: > >> I would love to talk about my ideas. This is exactly the kind of >> conversations we should be having. However, I do not want strawman >> arguments to obscure the election issues. >> The election issue is not the ideas I have been spinning around about >> what roles ICANN might play at some stage. I don't think my views, in >> any event, ought to become the objectives of NCUC. As an ordinary >> member of NCUC, or as a representative to the excon, either way, I would >> hope to persuade others that NCUC ought not push for a total free >> expression mandate until some of the issues about the Information >> Society and appropriate ways to view the Internet are more fully >> explored. There have been several comments on this list that I think >> misunderstand my views and I would like to correct. But that is not the >> point. >> >> It is not my particular view that matters. The only election issue I >> have raised are the 3 listed in my email regarding broader >> representation and neutrality. No one should be elected or not elected >> on their personal views if we can envision the NCUC as a coalition, a >> place for discussion, a trust to at least consider the broad range of >> views of noncommercial issues. >> >> I will give you complete drafts, summaries, outlines, sources, cites, >> etc. if you are interested, after the election. As I said talking about >> these possibilities maybe within the proper scope of the group's >> process. I may be persuaded to change my mind. I have certainly been >> entirely reasonable on all other issues. In any event, my issues are >> not the NCUC issues. >> >> Keep the NCUC Nuetral. >> >> >> Cheryl B. Preston >> Edwin M. Thomas >> Professor of Law >> J. Reuben Clark Law School >> Brigham Young University >> 424 JRCB >> Provo, UT 84602 >> (801) 422-2312 >> [log in to unmask] >> >> >> >>>>> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 10/25/2007 3:58 pm >>> >>>>> >>>> >> Thanks. I'm sure those of us in LA will be glad to see the papers. >> For the rest of us, perhaps you could summarize on this list your >> proposals >> >> for ICANN to regulate online content? >> >> Thank you, >> Robin >> >> >> Cheryl Preston wrote: >> >> >> >>> I have some papers that are in the editing process. I will bring >>> >> >> some >> >> >>> to LA or I can just give you summaries. >>> >>> As I said, however, that was a point of disclosure as to my view, at >>> least at the moment. Maybe the new IFG is the best place to talk >>> >> >> about >> >> >>> some global solutions. >>> My campaign is not to vote for me because you agree with my view on >>> this or anything else, but because NCUC needs either to have many >>> alternative views represented or stay out of contested politics >>> altogether. >>> >>> >>> Cheryl B. Preston >>> Edwin M. Thomas >>> Professor of Law >>> J. Reuben Clark Law School >>> Brigham Young University >>> 424 JRCB >>> Provo, UT 84602 >>> (801) 422-2312 >>> [log in to unmask] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 10/25/2007 11:01 am >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> Thanks for the info Cheryl. >>> I am curious to hear more about how you envision ICANN as a place for >>> >> >> >> >> >>> regulating content on the Internet. How would that work in practice? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> Cheryl Preston wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> I include here a statement of my objectives for NCUC and then a link >>>> >>>> >>> >>> to >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> a brief bio. >>>> >>>> I have worked on issues involving Internet governance and policy for >>>> only a few years. After looking at federal and state involvement in >>>> Internet law, I began writing a series of papers on the history and >>>> current position of ICANN, and its potential as an organizing force >>>> around which a global law of Internet governance could be discussed, >>>> considered and maintained. When I attended my first NCUC meeting >>>> >>>> >>> >>> last >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Spring in San Juan, I was presented with the "Keep the Net Neutral" >>>> petition NCUC had drafted and sponsored. It included a statement >>>> charging ICANN to do everything in its power to impose an absolute >>>> >>>> >>> >>> free >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> expression value at every level of the DNS system. >>>> I admit that I was rather stun >>>> >>> >> ned that the NCUC was so deeply >> >> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> involved >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> in promoting a particular social, political and legal position >>>> >>>> >>> >>> regarding >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> the role of ICANN. We were able to work a compromise by striking >>>> >>> >> the >> >> >>>> affirmative charge language in the petition, but the petition and >>>> >>> >> the >> >> >>>> later workshop sponsored by NCUC evidenced a clear commitment to >>>> >>> >> this >> >> >>>> absolutist ideological view. >>>> After that meeting I did considerable investigation about the >>>> >>> >> history >> >> >>>> of the NCUC and the people who have been involved, as well as the >>>> history and people involved in the larger sphere of those who >>>> >>>> >>> >>> advocating >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> this position in Internet and other policy debates. In addition, I >>>> spoke with my friends and colleagues who have been involved with >>>> >>>> >>> >>> other >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> constituency groups or with long-time players such as VeriSign. >>>> >>>> My personal and professional opinion with respect to ICANN and the >>>> Internet, both nationally and globally, is very simplistically >>>> >>> >> stated >> >> >>>> as: >>>> >>>> (1) Competing values need to be appropriately balanced in this new >>>> virtual world, just as we have strived to do in the real world in >>>> >>>> >>> >>> every >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> jurisprudential era; >>>> >>>> (2) Even the strongest forms of idealized free speech (i.e. under >>>> >>> >> the >> >> >>>> U.S. First Amendment) are balanced and nuanced by centuries of the >>>> >>>> >>> >>> best >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> legal minds; >>>> >>>> (3) A passionate commitment to the principle of free expression, >>>> including the right of all people to political and subversive >>>> >>> >> speech, >> >> >>>> does not mean that we must abandon all forms of constraint on the >>>> Internet; >>>> >>>> (4) Having a thoughtful, balanced and realistic view of what few >>>> extreme forms of speech are more harmful than helpful does not mean >>>> >>>> >>> >>> that >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> next week we will construct the Chinese Wall, imprison dissidents, >>>> >>> >> or >> >> >>>> squelch all religious freedom; >>>> >>>> (5) One issue that deserves study, dialogue and exploration is if we >>>> can and/or should look for a way to configure the technology, >>>> traditional and nontraditional forms of regulation, and economic and >>>> social incentives to give a choice to parents around the world who >>>> >>> >> do >> >> >>>> not want their children educated in sex and human relations by the >>>> >>>> >>> >>> kind >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> of pornography and obscenity now flooding the Internet; and >>>> (6) It may be that ICANN might have an appropriate role in supportin >>>> >>>> >>> >>> g >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> any kind of eventual resolution to this problem we might someday >>>> >>>> >>> >>> devise >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> though the good faith dialogue of the global community. >>>> >>>> Yes, in short, although I agree with the extreme importance of free >>>> expression on the Internet and elsewhere, I do not think that now, >>>> >>> >> at >> >> >>>> this early date in the development of the technology, law and >>>> >>> >> culture >> >> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> of >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> this new information society, we should seek to bind ICANN to a >>>> value/politics laden (and revolutionary and untried) legal position >>>> >>>> >>> >>> of >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> pushing for unfettered free expression at the expense of all other >>>> values. >>>> And, yes, I do not believe that we ought to excuse entirely ICANN >>>> >>>> >>> >>> from >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> the trust and stewardship it has been given over this global >>>> >>> >> resource >> >> >>>> created with the funds of the US public standing for themselves and >>>> >>>> >>> >>> for >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> all of world’s humanity of this generation and the future. >>>> >>>> With that disclosure on the table, my view of NCUC is: >>>> >>>> (1) I am confident that the handful of people who have almost >>>> exclusively run NCUC from the beginning are honest, smart, skilled >>>> >>>> >>> >>> and >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> devoted. But, I have researched to the extent I can the backgrounds >>>> >>>> >>> >>> and >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> views of these actors and the organizations with whom they >>>> >>> >> affiliate. >> >> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> These are fine organizations and I do not doubt their good faith or >>>> >>>> >>> >>> the >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> quality of their intellectual work. However, they are uniformly of >>>> >>> >> a >> >> >>>> particular social/political v >>>> >>> >> iewpoint on critical issues concerning >> >> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> the >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Internet. This viewpoint is not representative of the full range of >>>> noncommercial Internet users, nor of the variety of positions and >>>> >>>> >>> >>> causes >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> promoted by the many nonprofit organizations focused specifically on >>>> >>>> >>> >>> the >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Internet in the US - not to mention such users and organizations in >>>> >>>> >>> >>> the >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> wide range of countries around the globe. >>>> >>>> (2) I believe that NCUC should not be an advocacy group for same >>>> >>> >> the >> >> >>>> reasons that the IGF has determined that their dynamic coalitions >>>> >>> >> not >> >> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> be >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> advocacy groups. Moreover, NCUC absolutely should not be used as a >>>> >>>> >>> >>> tool >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> for the advocacy of a single, highly contested position just because >>>> >>>> >>> >>> the >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> actors who became involved in the beginning (before most of the >>>> >>> >> world >> >> >>>> even knew there was such a thing as ICANN or NCUC) share a >>>> >>> >> particular >> >> >>>> view. Nor should it be an advocacy group for my position or any >>>> >>>> >>> >>> other. >>> >>> >>> >>>> I have heard, but conducted no objective study, the opinion that the >>>> statements coming out of the NCUC, unlike other groups, are >>>> >>> >> routinely >> >> >>>> dismissed as a refrain of a single, inflexible, and particularized >>>> approach to ICANN and the Internet, which approach doesn't well >>>> accommodate the dynamic dialogue envisioned by the multi-stakeholder >>>> principle. >>>> >>>> (3) NCUC should take seriously the trust of representing the >>>> >>>> >>> >>> interests >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> of noncommercial users of the Internet and make some effort to >>>> >>>> >>> >>> determine >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> who falls in this category of users and what these users want in >>>> >>>> >>> >>> terms >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> of long-term, global Internet policy. NCUC should then study, >>>> >>>> >>> >>> consider >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> and discuss these interests and make representative, respectful and >>>> >>>> >>> >>> fair >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> suggestions to the GSNO for the betterment of the Internet. This >>>> >>>> >>> >>> seems >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> to be the charge given by ICANN. >>>> >>>> (4) In any event and notwithstanding all three of the above, the >>>> leadership of any group entrusted to represent a large and diverse >>>> constituency and make, on their behalf, recommendations should be >>>> routinely renewed and refreshed by new perspectives and approaches. >>>> >>> >>> I >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> fully understand that involvement in ICANN is very expensive and >>>> >>>> >>> >>> almost >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> prohibitive for those whose employers or clients do not have the >>>> economic stake or the resources to support the individuals doing the >>>> work. I agree that NCUC needs to make a case to the ICANN board >>>> >>> >> why, >> >> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> by >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> definition, the "non-commercial" users cannot afford to participate >>>> >>>> >>> >>> in >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> the same way that the commercial constituencies can. Thus, the >>>> noncommercial interest group exists of record, but it cannot >>>> >>> >> function >> >> >>>> effectively without support. The result of the current system is >>>> >>>> >>> >>> that >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> NCUC speaks only for the few such organization that, for what ever >>>> reason, have est >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ablished relationships with businesses and >>> individuals >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> with loads of disposable cash, with sufficient economic incentive to >>>> justify supporting that particular organization, with governments, >>>> >>>> >>> >>> and >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> with the few universities who generously fund advocacy work. While >>>> >>> >> I >> >> >>>> understand that funds are now given by ICANN to support NCUC work, I >>>> fully understand that the ICANN support is insufficient and those >>>> involved must be financially able to absorb the travel and time >>>> >>> >> costs. >> >> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> I admit readily that I do not have the hands-on experience or >>>> >>>> >>> >>> long-term >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> background that Robert has. I don't suppose I am the best qualified >>>> >>>> >>> >>> or >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> most able person in the North American region to do this work. I >>>> >>>> >>> >>> would >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> joyously vote for anyone else who wanted to do this and who could >>>> >>> >> (1) >> >> >>>> begin a practice >>>> >>> >> of reaching out to other viewpoints; and (2) create >> >> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> a >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> pattern where new people can be given the opportunities and thus the >>>> experience necessary for leadership - with the duty to invite, in >>>> >>>> >>> >>> turn, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> new people and perspectives to work through the system. >>>> >>>> My basic biographical information is available at: >>>> http://www.law.byu.edu/Law_School/Faculty_Profile?102 >>>> Please ask if you have questions. Thank you for taking the time to >>>> consider these recommendations and my candidacy. >>>> >>>> Cheryl B. Preston >>>> Edwin M. Thomas >>>> Professor of Law >>>> J. Reuben Clark Law School >>>> Brigham Young University >>>> 424 JRCB >>>> Provo, UT 84602 >>>> (801) 422-2312 >>>> [log in to unmask] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > >