Hi Robin, Milton and all,
As the document will be part of a public campaign or, at least,
be available publicly on the Internet for everyone to see, I would
explain all the acronyms (GNSO, BGC, ALAC, SIC,...) and refer to them
in an appendix, including the ones that seem obvious - but are not -
for people who might not even know what ICANN stands for. I
guess they are many people who, even though they are interested in
knowing more about Internet governance issues, will stop reading the
document after seeing so many acronyms, and its purpose will be lost
for some of the people who could potentially register as new NCUC
members.
If this document is not only for ICANN staff/board and NCUC staff
to see, I would change the wording to make it understandable for the
average Joe. If opening up this procedural fairness debate to
public debate is what the NCUC aims for, I would rewrite some of the
paragraphs to make it much less hard to decipher.
Example:
Myth 9
"Civil Society won't participate in ICANN
under NCUC's charter proposal."
False. ICANN staffers and others claim that
civil society is discouraged from engaging at ICANN because NCUC's
charter proposal does not guarantee GNSO Council seats to
constituencies. The facts could not be further from the truth.
NCUC's membership includes 142 noncommercial organizations and
individuals. Since 2008 NCUC's membership has increased by more
215% - largely in direct response to civil society's support for
the NCUC charter. Not a single noncommercial organization
commented in the public comment forum that hard-wiring council seats
to constituencies will induce their participation in
ICANN.
I would modify the last sentence by:
None of the noncommercial organizations that commented on the
NCUC Charter said they would participate to ICANN only if NCUC's
Charter secured the constituencies they would represent a seat on the
GNSO Council.
Another example:
Myth 10
"The purpose of a constituency is to have your very own GNSO
Councilor."
False. Some claim GNSO Council seats must be hard-wired
to specific constituencies because a constituency is meaningless
without a guaranteed GNSO Council representative. However this
interpretation fails to understand the role of constituencies in the
new GNSO, which is to give a voice and a means of
participation in the policy development
process
I would briefly explain here how does that participation works in
practice.
-- not a guaranteed councilor who has little
incentive to reach beyond her constituency and find consensus with
other constituencies. Two of the other three stakeholder
groups
Which ones?
adopted NCUC's charter approach of decoupling GNSO
Council seats to constituencies, but NCUC has been prevented from
electing its councilors on a SG-wide basis.
What is a "SG-wide basis"? I confess that after reading
2 weeks of emails on the NCUC discussion mailing list, I do not know
what the acronym refers to. A quick search online dispelled my
doubts, but the average reader of this document will not do it, and
you will get him lost.
I would also explain, at the end of the document, who the NCUC
represents; that it indeed represents the average Joe, why he has to
worry about what is happening, and what he can do to add his voice to
the debate.
Cedric
---
Thanks, Milton.
I've added a couple more myths and suggested edits in the attached
document.
All, please send in more comments and suggestions for refining this
document so we can publish it in the next few days.
Thanks,
Robin
?
On Aug 11, 2009, at 5:57 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
I have added a myth (one that I know Bd
members are very concerned about) but we still need two others for our
"top ten" list. Send in suggestions....
See attached
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 5:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Top Myths About the Civil Society NCSG
Charter
Robin, this is really useful.
I would alter the order of some of them and change a few wordings to
make them less defensive. Mind if I work on it a bit?
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Top Myths About the Civil Society NCSG
Charter
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]
<Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in
ICANN.doc>
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]
Thanks, Milton.
I've added a couple more myths and
suggested edits in the attached document.
All, please send in more comments and
suggestions for refining this document so we can publish it in the
next few days.
Thanks,
Robin
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
x-mac-type=5738424E;
x-unix-mode=0644;
x-mac-creator=4D535744;
name=Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation
in ICANN.doc
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="Top
Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN.doc"
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Top
Ten Myths About #2A48A2.doc (W8BN/MSWD) (002A48A2)
On Aug 11, 2009, at 5:57 AM, Milton L
Mueller wrote:
I have added a myth (one that I know Bd members are
very concerned about) but we still need two others for our "top
ten" list. Send in suggestions....
See
attached
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 5:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Top Myths About the Civil Society
NCSG Charter
Robin, this is really useful.
I would
alter the order of some of them and change a few wordings to make them
less defensive. Mind if I work on it a bit?
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin Gross [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Top Myths About the Civil Society NCSG
Charter
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]
<Top Ten Myths About Civil Society
Participation in ICANN.doc>
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]
--
Cedric Laurant,
Esq.
Researcher, GECTI
(Grupo de Estudios en Internet, Comercio Electrónico,
Telecomunicaciones
& Informática), Universidad de los Andes
(http://gecti.uniandes.edu.co/)
Carrera 1 No.
18A-10 - Bogota, D.C. (COLOMBIA)
http://www.linkedin.com/in/cedriclaurant