Thanks, Cedric, these are very helpful comments. Those of us enmeshed in ICANN acronyms often forget there is another world out there where people might now what the GOTPDPWG stands for ;-) Thanks, Robin On Aug 12, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Cedric Laurant wrote: > 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 [NCUC- >>> [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 [NCUC- >>> [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 [NCUC- >>> [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 [NCUC- >>> [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) > <[log in to unmask]> - Skype: cedrichl > http://www.linkedin.com/in/cedriclaurant 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]