For what it's worth I wrote a post on my blog about ICANN free speech issues and the importance of including non-commercial voices, aimed at people who know little or nothing about the IRT, NCUC, or how ICANN works. http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/07/icann-and-free-speech.html Best, Rebecca On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Bill, > You are hired as my editor! Thanks very much!! > > I'll get these points into the document. > > Best, > Robin > > > On Jul 14, 2009, at 12:12 AM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi Robin, > This is very useful, thanks for doing it. > > Don't know whether you are open to considering amendments, but in the event > you are there's a couple points you might consider amplifying/clarifying to > strengthen the argument, particularly for outreach to folks who are not > already following this closely. > > On Jul 14, 2009, at 2:04 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > > > Board Appointed (top-down) vs. Elected (bottom-up) Represent ion on GNSO > Council > > Specifically, beginning with the Seoul ICANN Meeting in October 2009, > noncommercial users and commercial users are each supposed to have elected 6 > representatives to the GNSO Council. However, as a result of back channel > lobbying by the commercial constituencies who lost the advantage in numbers > of councilors, the 3 new GNSO Council seats that should have gone up for > election to noncommercial users, will instead become board appointments. > > > Aside from a general sense that reps should be elected rather than > appointed, some readers might not get what the problem is here. Might it be > useful to add a sentence addressing the possibility of non-representative > reps dictated by staff/board, fragmentation of SG cohesion, etc? Should it > be noted that the appointments are supposed to be for just the first cycle? > > > ICANN Defies Public Comment and Imposes Stranglehold Charter Model > > What did ICANN do in response to the public comment it received and the > global consensus against the stranglehold charter model proposed by CP80? > ICANN adopted the stranglehold charter model for noncommercial users, > defying the unanimous public support expressed for the charter drafted by > noncommercial users that was created through a consensus process. > > > Wouldn't it be good for this paragraph to describe precisely what the > nature of the stranglehold is with the staff version? You say above that > CP80s' would put NC "in endless competition among factionalized > constituencies, constantly fighting over scarce resources and representation > on ICANN's GNSO Council," but readers who've not read CP80s and the staff's > against each other might not get just what you're contending the current > version would do. > > > ICANN's Sneaky Move to Keep Plans Hidden > > On 23 June 2009, when ICANN finally released its proposed charter to > noncommercial users, in addition to the charter being an entirely different > different structure than the one created by the consensus process, ICANN's > charter also omitted to include the most important section 5 which deals > with management of the NCSG and in particular, representation on the GNSO > Policy Council. > > > I am a little confused by this, so others may be too. Presumably the text > staff has posted for comment is the "official" version being considered. > What exactly is the status of section 5, then? > > > Only after explicitly requesting to see the omitted section, was NCUC > provided section 5 from ICANN with the understanding that it is staff's > proposal for governing the NCSG. One will not find ICANN's proposed section > 5 in its NCSG charter published on the ICANN website, but it can read be > read here -- and it must be read together with the ICANN-drafted NCSG > charter for it be clear what sneakiness is at play. > > > The "it can read be read here" has a link on your blog, but in the ascii > version sent to the listservs there's no link, so readers cannot see what > you're talking about. Moreover, even if they go to your blog and follow the > link, the description of voting rules etc might leave them unclear as to > just what the problem is. Wouldn't it make sense to quote the source and > describe the problem a little? Otherwise, asking people to "tell ICANN" etc > might not work as well. > > Just some thoughts, make of them what you will. > > Should I send it to the council list to tweak some beaks? > > Thanks > > Bill > > > > > > 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] > > > > -- Rebecca MacKinnon Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong UK: +44-7759-863406 USA: +1-617-939-3493 HK: +852-6334-8843 Mainland China: +86-13710820364 E-mail: [log in to unmask] Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack