At 12:25 PM -0400 8/16/09, Avri Doria wrote: >On 16 Aug 2009, at 11:33, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> We want to make a strong and unified statement so if you have any >> objections let us know quickly. We need to get this before the Board >> soon. Please avoid proposing minor wordsmithing changes; this is >> pretty much a yes or no proposition at this point. > > >Yes, I support the EC sending this letter. > >(though it does need further proof reading before sending) > >a. I actually made time to read through the whole thing in detail on a lazy Sunday afternoon. FWIW, I'm in, yes. Dan PS: Jorge's question seems to me an important one to consider in conjunction with this letter, though I think it should not at all prevent the letter from going out promptly: what does NCUC do if the Board denies this request? If not just walk out (and, I assume, then actively communicate broadly to media and others the illegitimacy of ICANN governance structures/procedures -- this has to be very visible publicly for maximum impact, with a goal to bring meaningful external political pressure upon ICANN), what then? Trying to "have any *real* representation of non-commercial users at ICANN" when such representation is systematically, structurally hobbled seems sort of like a 'square-the-circle' proposition. What is lost by a walk-out (does NCUC lose a "legitimate" platform to claim wrongdoing? -- does it lose any significant insider access to ICANN's policy machinations, such as communications with staff?), and what is lost by staying in (does it re-legitimize the SIC/Staff's expanded power grab and acquiesce to the increasingly profound ineffectuality of the current NCUC in influencing any ICANN policy moving forward?). So the question to reply to Jorge's is: If the Board rejects this proposal, what *real* representation of non-commercial users at ICANN is possible "within the system" given the status quo? Assuming it is nonzero, is it enough of an advantage to balance the potentials from walking out and making a big stink, to try to bring external pressure to bear upon ICANN (ultimately via the NTIA, or even with respect to an alternate or competing root system)? New members of NCUC must find all of this rather bewildering (a common component of the overall ICANN experience, I must say). Join up just to walk out? Yet, whatever collective entity walks out of ICANN obviously can still remain organized if it so chooses, and as a collective force it can wield influence with regard to ICANN, even if it is "from outside" rather than "from inside" the institution. The strategies and tactics may vary, but the collective force remains in either case -- there is power in numbers. And the boundary of "outside" from "inside" with regard to ICANN governance structure is as fuzzy as it gets anywhere. So far, ICANN meetings are still open to the public, so everyone who attended them in the past as part of NCUC should still be able to attend them as part of "the former NCUC" and anyone on the Board may still meet with them on their own recognizance, I presume (replace private meeting spaces with public spaces, at future events -- with any private meetings being held off-site, or even virtually). At this stage, I wonder if such "informal" participation would be significantly less influential than "formal" participation, given how NCUC's formal participation seems to be losing influence as it is. It's not as if ICANN is reimbursing NCUC members for travel/lodging costs. If any current NCUC funding depends on its formal place in the ICANN "advisory cloud" then that funding would need to be replaced to sustain current NCUC operations. I don't know how big a deal that really is, at this point. And, there is always the possibility of looking for ways to "formally" participate simultaneously via the At-large group, such as it is. The flip side to ICANN being so weirdly spread out in terms of governance structure is that, ironically, it presents a multitude of entry points to engage the organization. Bottom line: In order for the carrot to be addressed seriously, there may need to be at least an implication of a stick with some undesirable consequences for the Board. Walking out, without further coordinated and strategic action aimed at ICANN, may not be much of a stick. OTOH, it may be neither here nor there (if the current degree of internal influence is negligible), while opening up previously unutilized possibilities for external action that would be less appropriate coming from an official "insider" group. The implied stick would be: "Don't make us walk out. It will free us up to be increasingly impolite, and non-consensual. We might even grow our membership more strongly as a result. It could certainly become more explicitly political, and bring ICANN further out of the shadows into more general public discourse. We've actually been pulling our punches as long as we are part of the formal advisory structure of governance, attempting to participate within the culture of consensus. When we walk out, we will have no such constraints. But we will still be here, in your face, and with the legitimacy of our historical role at ICANN talking increasingly to the general public, shaping perceptions of ICANN as an institution of public governance that is unaccountable to the public interest, and powerfully controlled by narrow special interests." This is just one person's opinion and thoughts, of course. -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.