Only one point here Cheryl you are saying: ³The Alternative Charter is not too late. I have again talked with ICANN staff...² - I am not sure how plausible this is. We have already sent a charter and you speaking to ICANN staff about an alternative one is for me at least quite worrying. NCUC is trying as hard as we can to influence ICANN/GNSO decisions and you enquiring the possibility of submitting a new charter does not make us seem as a team that has in place democratic processes, which is not the case. I just wanted to express my concern over this as it is completely misleading to the way we are working. Konstantinos On 01/12/2008 18:33, "Cheryl Preston" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > This topic has raised interesting discussion on the very kind of issues > that non-commercial Internet users should be talking about. We have > heard from all of the active NCUC folks, except for Robin and Carlos and > they will probably weigh in later today. Rather than respond to each of > the statements made by Bill, Milton, Konstantin, Norbert and Mary (as > much as I may like to), I am going to focus on 3 VERY BIG issues. > > 1. The Alternative Charter is not too late. I have again talked > with ICANN staff and there is no ³deadline² that was missed. The > only time frame was Miltonıs offer to the Board representatives in > Cairo to turn in a draft before the end of November, and both versions > met this. The staff is just beginning to address their procedures in > reviewing charter proposals. ICANN as an organization is not going to > cut off valuable discussion and consideration of alternatives without > having a clear, publicly posted deadline. > > 2. Mary is correct in describing the ³cohesive, unified² > approach that has been the hallmark of NCUC representation. Rather than > being a political strength, however, the single issue solidarity has > been seen by many in ICANN as a weakness, as a barrier to consensus > building. The NCUC representatives are solidified around free > expression and the kind of ³net neutrality² that overrides competing > concerns for protections and standards on the Internet. If you would > like a list of NCUC statements and positions over the last few years, > let me know. > > They are effective in voting as a block. The business users group, for > example, is made up of 3-4 constituencies who do not always have > ³similar interests,² but sometimes widely inconsistent and > competing interests that have to be negotiated. (Do you want > testimonials?) A broad-based, consensus building model is meant to > foster compromises and balancing at every level. > > I agree wholeheartedly with Norbert when he talks about the evils of > governmental repression of political speech. Building an Internet that > can resist such pressure is a fundamental value of mine as well. > However, we are capable of the more sophisticated approach, as is true > in the law of every free nation. We need not oppose every kind of > regulation or law enforcement on the Web to reach our goals on political > repression. Mary notes that ³NCUC is often the only forum/voice for > individuals and non-business interests to discuss fundamental public > policy issues such as fair and open Internet access/neutrality.² The > fact that it is the only forum/voice is exactly why it needs to include > and represent those who have other valuable concerns to balance with > ³open access.² > > 3. You all have expertise to make the critical decisions about > charters. ICANN is aware that their efforts to build a bottom-up > support organization have been impaired by the way newcomers are treated > (Note: be sure to respond to the constituency survey before the > mid-December deadline). We must avoid the kind of dialogue that conveys > this message: ³There is this bigger, scary political dynamic and rules > and deadlines you canıt understand, and you, as a newcomer, donıt > have nearly enough history, background, insider connections, and > expertise.² > > The issue here is simple, and all of you are more than qualified to > address it: Should the representatives for all non-commercial Internet > users in ICANNıs policy processes unify in solidarity for free > expression in a simple structure that squeezes out other user interests > and alternative approaches? > > I see no reason to continue any discussion other than on the merits of > the two proposals. > > > > 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] > >>>> >>> Mary Wong <[log in to unmask]> 11/30/2008 11:54 pm >>> > Hello everyone > > I'd like to add my own note of welcome to all new members, whose voice > and expertise I personally am looking forward to benefiting from. As > Norbert has done, I'd like also to introduce myself briefly and to do > what I can to clarify what's been happening at/within ICANN and NCUC. > > Along with Bill Drake (who, with others who have long been involved in > Internet governance issues, is currently flying the flag for > bottom-up, > multistakeholder involvement at the IGF in Hyderabad) I was recently > elected as a new NCUC representative to the GNSO Council (joining > Carlos > Affonso de Pereira from Brazil). As many of you know, I pledged to > respect and further open discussion of what at times are disparate > voices, disagreements and differing priorities/issues amongst us, > while > trying my best to craft a representative and - if possible - unified > viewpoint to other constituencies and groups within ICANN. Unlike the > other GNSO constituencies, NCUC is unique in that our members will not > always have similar views on many issues; this, unfortunately, can > also > be our "weakness" (and I will explain what I mean by this below). > > Although I have less personal experience/involvement in ICANN than > many > of you (especially Milton, Norbert, Robin, Carlos and others) my > recent > observations and experiences (from Paris and Cairo, and now - wading > daily through over a dozen (often more) lengthy emails and numerous > conference calls/requests regarding GNSO work) are as follows, first > on > GNSO/ICANN and then on the ongoing NCUC/NCSG process. > > 1. GNSO/ICANN > > - I can't overly emphasize how vital it is for all NCUC members to > realize that we are often a group "under siege" by better-funded, more > unified (for having more clearly aligned - usually commercial - > interests) constituencies/groups, including - and sometimes especially > - > within the GNSO. > > - The main reason for this lies mostly with the fact that, as our name > implies, we are there to represent the non-commercial users (whether > institutions or individuals); as such, NCUC is often the only > forum/voice for individuals and non-business interests to discuss > fundamental public policy issues such as fair and open Internet > access/neutrality. > > - NCUC's Councillors generally endeavor to speak and vote according to > what we perceive - largely through feedback mechanisms such as this > listserv - to be the prevailing view (and if possible, consensus) > amongst NCUC members. While we three each cast individual votes, we > try > as far as possible to discuss and coordinate our actions and views. We > also know there will be times where there is no NCUC view or > consensus; > at such times, we try our best to discern an objective and fair > viewpoint to take. Should any NCUC member believe that any of our > votes > or speeches misrepresent the constituency view or are otherwise > unsupported/insupportable, we hope you will not hesitate to raise the > matter publicly (e.g. on this listserv.) > > - ICANN is a hugely complex, and dare I say intimidatingly > bureaucratized, organization: not only are there multiple issues > (ranging from technical standards to public policy) being worked on at > once, but deadlines are usually tight, and coordination often > difficult > to achieve. This often also means that the better-funded and > professionally-staffed constituencies can muster views and positions > much more quickly and consistently than NCUC (since most if not all of > us do ICANN work on top of our regular jobs.) As I said before, my > view > therefore is that it's crucial for NCUC (or whatever group ultimately > represents non-commercial users at ICANN) to present a coherent and, > if > possible, unified public viewpoint, as this makes our position > stronger > and our views more likely to make an impact. > > 2. On the NCUC/NCSG question > > - Milton and (I believe) Konstantinos has already outlined the > background and timelines involved in this, so let me just add my > personal belief that this is one issue where NCUC members CANNOT > afford > to appear fragmented and disunited. With the backgrorestructuring (and > recalling the recent, fraught and difficult battle > over the number of votes per existing constituency in the new > bicameral > house structure), the political reality is that it is entirely > possible > that a diffused and weakened Non-Commercial user group will mean less > influence and respect in the restructured GNSO. > > - Let me add also that it is currently UNCLEAR what the relationship > between the proposed new Stakeholder Groups and constituencies will > be. > None of the official ICANN studies or documents discuss (much less > resolve) this question, making it all the more important that there be > a > unified, strong Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that will continue to > represent - and fight - for non-commercial voices and interests. > > - I support Milton's proposal for a number of reasons, including the > very strong impression I got in Cairo that it would greatly benefit > NCUC/NCSG to submit a formal proposal to the Board as early as it > could > possibly do so. The draft proposal was what was discussed and (as a > result) modified, and it was the modified document that was submitted > within the designated time period. > > - Finally, and returning briefly to the "platform" upon which I asked > for all of your support in the Council, it is absolutely critical that > the Non-Commercial user group does NOT allow itself to be divided into > multiple and different groups that do not have a formal vote in the > new > GNSO structure. Milton's proposal has the benefit of allowing not just > the formation of new constituencies WITHIN a strong Non-Commercial > Stakeholder Group (NCSG), it also gives those new constituencies a > voice > and vote within the NCSG AND avoids the fragmentation and consequent > weakening of our "external positioning" that I have already mentioned. > > With apologies for the length of this post, > > Mary > > > >>>> >>> Norbert Klein <[log in to unmask]> 11/30/08 3:16 PM >>> > Dear new individual members of the NCUC (the new NCSG does not yet > exist) who > wrote recently, > > "Ralph D. Clifford" <[log in to unmask]> > "Jon Garon" <[log in to unmask]> > "Kim, Nancy" <[log in to unmask]> > > May I first introduce myself: Norbert Klein, since 1990 in Cambodia, > working > since 1994 in non-commercial organizations in 1994 I created the > first > > Internet system in the country, in 1996 the country address .kh, and > in > 1999 > I joined the ³non-commercials² in ICANN at that time it had a > different > name. During the last three years I was sent by the NCUC as a > councillor > into > the GNSO. Since November 2008, I am a member of the ICANN Nomination > Committee. > > Though my working day though a Sunday went beyond midnight, I > want > to > write to you and our community, because I am concerned about what you > write > my mail is still basically a letter of welcome. I may not respond to > all > of > your concern and questions in a way you may expect but I do so on > the > basis > of many hours during many years of a struggle to get our voice - the > Non > Commercial Users Constituency heard, as it developed over the > years, > and in > the context of ICANN. We found ourselves often in a difficult position > - > > others with business, intellectual property, and technical mandates > had > often > better institutional support structures. > > While I understand your hope, saying to ³add that simplicity is also > > valuable,... ... without adding significant complexity to the > proposal² > - I > can only plead to spend quite some more time working through the > complexity > of the ICANN website: > > http://www.icann.org > > Surely you have done it but I admit, after so many years, that I > am > still > struggling to be oriented not only about the structures but > about > the > dynamics and time lines, which exist and to which we have to adapt > ourselves, > if we want to have our voice heard, according to the right procedure, > at > the > right place, and at the right time. > > One sentence makes me concerned: ³The bottom line is that ICANN is > not > perceived to be an open organization, nor one that is willing to > proPerceived by whom? A complex network of cooperating organizations and > > institutions with their different interests cannot be called to be > ³not > open² > for having worked out, changed, further developed, and revised again, > certain > rules and procedures. The discussions and outside consultancies and > preparations towards the present GNSO restructuring process have been > going > on for several years and as it is a process where quite different > institutional actors are involved, not all of our concerns have been > received > with the same ³openness² which we would have hoped for. But I > cannot > easily > accept to say that ICANN is ³not willing to provide a voice to new > users > of > the Internet and Web.² > > In 1999, and for some years to follow, there was an effort going on to > create > an ³individual membership constituency² - which did not lead > anywhere, > because it was basically an effort by ONE person trying to decide what > has to > happen, and there was no support for this kind of approach in ICANN. > We, > in > the NCUC, received since that time the clear mandate to be a membership > > organization of organizations, though we were concerned that this > excluded > the possibility for quite a number of individual persons who would > have > liked > to bring their contribution into our fellowship. > > Now, when we finally have taken the initiative to remove the > institutional > constraints for individuals and have received the agreement within > the > > ICANN-GNSO restructuring to accept also individual members into the > NCUC > (on > the way into the NCSG) - I see no reason to say that ICANN is ³not > willing to > provide a voice to new users of the Internet and Web.² > > You are among the first coming into this door we have worked to open. > > I cannot comment much on the alternatives proposed by Prof. Cheryl > Preston > presented at a point in time publicly known to have been too late to be > > integrated and sent to the ICANN board after a draft had been > discussed in > different stages in the constituency, and we finally had a text which > had > received wide consensus and was sent on. > > Let me close with some content concern, and not only with structures. > But it > is again a very complex, not a simple situation we face. > > Freedom, justice, and openness have been extremely important elements > for my > work in Cambodia in a context where the technological, economic, > and > political situation is VERY different from the one in most of the > north-Atlantic countries. It was for me personally always important to > have > in the NCUC fellowship a group of people from where I could get > support and > inspiration for our situation here even when we were in ICANN > encountering > challenges which were not only encouraging for our efforts in Cambodia > (I am > editing, since more than 10 years, a review of the Cambodian language > press > in English). The media not only the printed press is in an > unending > struggle to find ways to communicate freely without intervention. The > discussions about freedom of expression in ICANN, including in the > domain > name system - provide always a context for me here, as they have for > the > > society in the USA. I just read, before writing to you, the following > article, a kind of homework for the GNSO Councillors from the NCUC > > and > this work is being done, of course, on the basis of discussion in the > constituency. Therefore I hope for some extensive comments back: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30google-t.html?ref=todayspaper&pag > ewanted=all > > > Whatever the time is at your end when you get this here it is now > 02:50. But > I wrote now because of a deep concern. > > > Norbert > > -- > Norbert Klein > Phnom Penh/Cambodia > PGP key-id 0x0016D0A9 > > If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us > regularly - > you can find something new every day: > > http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English) > http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer) -- Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Lecturer in Law, GigaNet Membership Chair, University of Strathclyde, The Lord Hope Building, 141 St. James Road, Glasgow, G4 0LT, UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 email: [log in to unmask]