I guess it is a matter of what time frame one thinks were the "bad old days." What remains is not only the lack of voting participation (most of the time, but sometimes you have votes), but complete lack of process to include anyone outside of the Councilors, who are the same 4-5 who rotate around in the offices and appointments over the years. It isn't a matter of simply electing representatives, because not all of the regional reps and officers are regularly involved. I am not suggesting the answer is requiring a vote before taking positions, as that will also be perfunctory. But perhaps it would help to have some effort to engage members in consensus building. Further, NCUC could include in official position statements some indication of who and how many members support the position. Cheryl B. Preston Edwin M. Thomas Professor of Law J. Reuben Clark Law School Brigham Young University 434 JRCB Provo, UT 84602 (801) 422-2312 [log in to unmask] >>> Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> 9/11/2008 2:39 pm >>> Hi, Mary: You're right, in telecom regulation (which I've been familiar with in various countries) they often pose specific questions in their proposed rulemakings. And that doesn't stop anyone from saying whatever they want to say regardless! But it often helps them to frame and classify responses. In ICANN it is new. And based on some past experiences there may be a lack of trust in the staff to be neutral in the way they frame issues and ask questions. Another issue is that we can expect GNSO to ask us to document levels of support and "participation" in our constituency statements. This is problematic because it is based on the premise that most members have nothing more important to do than follow the ins and outs of every single ICANN proceeding. My assumption has always been that you elect Councilors to do most of the work, and weigh in when you have a special interest or special knowledge about a situation. In the bad old days, when the precursor to the NCUC had a dysfunctional constitution, we used to have a vote of the entire membership before our Councillors could take a position on anything. Which usually meant, no timely position. Too much traffic on the list, people couldn't keep up with it. --M ________________________________ From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 2:55 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [council] Constituency input sought on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP Hi Robin and everyone, I agree that this practice can raise exactly those issues of concern you pointed out (and for the reasons you highlighted). On the other hand, I imagine that proponents of the template would argue that the efficiency and global community input achievable potentially with this practice may outweigh any risks of manipulation by interested parties. It may be useful to get more background regarding this practice, particularly given that many government and international consultations (e.g. on proposed legislative reform) tend to take the form of consultation papers that reflect a similar template, i.e. specific questions that are drafted and posed by the person/entity/department circulating the document, thereby enabling the management and circumscribing of full debates. Perhaps you, Carlos, Milton, Norbert or others who know more about the history and practices of ICANN input-seeking can chime in? For instance, how has the process been managed in the past (e.g., were specific questions posed, who drafted them and did non-ICANN personnel and various constituencies have any drafting role)? Also, how were the comments collected and publicized (e.g., were they all made public in full, and was it possible to include additional comments outside the boundaries set by the questions)? Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: [log in to unmask] Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/profs/wong.htm Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 9/8/2008 9:35 AM >>> ICANN is now sending out templates for constituency input. It used to be the case that a constituency could express its own concerns in its own constituency statement. But this new proposed format leaves significant opportunity to manage policy debate by asking some things, but not other things. And of course the way in which the questions are worded in the template can encourage a specific perspective that the constituency may not share. So this new template for constituency input is an example in which the GNSO can be more easily "managed" by ICANN and working group chairs...... concerning. Best, Robin Begin forwarded message: From: Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask]> Date: September 5, 2008 2:26:24 AM PDT To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: [council] Constituency input sought on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP Dear All, Each constituency is invited to provide input to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP. Please use the attached template, which can also be directly viewed on the Wiki, when providing constituency input. https://st.icann.org/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/index.cgi?template_for_constituency_statements_pdp_irtp_part_a The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP workspace is at: https://st.icann.org/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/index.cgi?irtp_part_a_pdp_wg_pdp_jun08 The deadline for submission of the constituency statements is 3 October 2008. https://st.icann.org/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/index.cgi?irtp_part_a_draft_working_group_timetable Constituency statements should be submitted to the working group list: <[log in to unmask]> NLT COB on 3 October 2008. Marika Konings, Policy Director, is the ICANN staff person supporting the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat [log in to unmask] http://gnso.icann.org