This is wonderful, thank you, Rebecca! On Jul 14, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: > 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 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]