I think it would be helpful if we came up with a document "top 10  
myths about the civil society NCSG charter" where we can list out all  
the various arguments we continually have to deal with that just  
don't apply to the facts.  Here's a few just off the top of my head.   
We can build on it.

"NCUC is not representative or diverse in its membership."
False.  NCUC represents 139 members including 74 noncommercial  
organizations and 65 individuals in 48 countries.  NCUC has increased  
its membership by 210% since the parity principle was established in  
the BGC Report in 2008.  The LSE Report of 2006 showed NCUC was among  
the most diverse of any constituency and about as diverse as the  
Internet population.  NCUC has grown considerably since this was  
documented.

"We can't let the NCUC-Cabal have more power."
False.  NCUC represents an extremely broad and diverse membership and  
has shared council representation among its membership.  The 2006 LSE  
Report documented that NCUC has the most number of different people  
serving on the GNSO Council over time and the highest turn-over of  
any of the 6 constituencies.  It is the commercial constituency  
representatives who have held on to a single GNSO Council seat for  
nearly a decade making the claim NCUC is a "cabal" of one or two  
people.  How's that for irony?

"NCUC will not share council seats with other noncommercial  
constituencies."
False.  NCUC will dissolve and spin out into various splinter  
noncommercial constituencies in the NCSG.  It does not make sense to  
have a "Noncommercial Users Constituency" and a "Noncommercial  
Stakeholders Group" as they are synonymous terms.  Given the  
diversity and breadth of NCUC's membership, many vastly different  
constituencies are likely to spin-out with competing agendas.  The  
organic self-forming approach to constituency formation is much  
better than the board/staff Soviet-style gerrymandering approach.

"The NCUC wants to take away the board's right to approve  
constituencies."
False.  NCUC is happy to let the board approve or disapprove of  
constituencies.  Our proposal simply offered to make a recommendation  
to the board based on objective criteria and for the board to make  
the decision.

"ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society  
drafted charter."
False.  An ALAC leader prefers the staff drafted charter and  
commented that she supports the staff drafted charter.  ICANN staff  
ran away with this comment and told the ICANN Board of Directors that  
ALAC prefers the staff drafted charter.  The ALAC leader also made  
some largely incoherent claims about previous ALAC comments  
supporting staff's charter (although no such charter draft existed  
for ALAC members to have previously commented on).

"Civil society is divided on the NCSG charter issue."
False.  Staff told the ICANN Board that civil society is divided, but  
the overwhelming public comment has been in strong opposition to the  
ICANN drafted NCSG charter.  Board members who rely on staff to tell  
them what to think probably believe civil society is divided.  Those  
board members who have actually read the public comments for  
themselves know a very different story of the solidarity of civil  
society against what ICANN is trying to impose on noncommercial users.

"Labeling public comments as 'letter writing campaigns' means you can  
ignore them."
False.  It is called "public comment period" because ICANN is  
supposed to listen to public comment.  Even if public comments were  
prompted by the receipt of information and a call for action, ICANN  
is still supposed to listen to them.  If anyone actually takes the  
time to read the comments submitted, they will see these are  
individually written and well thought out arguments from a broad  
range of noncommercial organizations individuals.  ICANN's attempt to  
discount critical comments by labeling them a "letter writing  
campaign" does little to inspire further participation or confidence  
in ICANN public processes.



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]