Challenges foreseen on 'Looking Towards the Future' by Vint Cerf http://www.icann.org/en/documents/vint_cerf/lttf.htm Alex On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Adam Peake<[log in to unmask]> wrote: > At 11:17 AM +0200 8/6/09, William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi Adam, >> >> I'm fine with restating openness to dialogue etc as you suggest. Not that >> we haven't before. >> >> Would like to pick up on one specific bit: >> >> On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> The NCUC does not have membership (or significant membership) from >>> international consumer organizations (noted in many recent comments from the >>> board and others as a missing constituent in all of ICANN), nor for the >>> largest academic communities, libraries, R&D, etc. >> >> This may well be "noted" by the board and others but it is patently untrue >> http://ncuc.syr.edu/members.htm. Just more disinformation. >> (BTW I also noted some on the transcript of the ALAC call, e.g. Nick >> saying that the NCUC proposal does not allow board approval of >> constituencies...facts don't matter if one can't be bothered to learn them). >> >> Which is not to say that it wouldn't be great to have more groups with >> "consumer" in their title etc. > > > Bill, I know the NCUC membership has been growing, both organizations and > individuals. But I got the impression ICANN was hoping (expecting) > participation from groups representing new non-commercial players, and also > larger national and international representative organizations. I think the > commercial side of the user house was expecting this too, at least that's > how I read some of the emails. > > Example in the library space, ALA has been a member for many years, but > there are hundreds of similar organizations around the world, and then > there's IFLA <http://www.ifla.org/> > > There's been a lot of talk about consumer organizations: most countries have > a national consumer organization, or many industry/sector related groups, > and there are regional and international bodies (Consumers International, > Jeremy Malcolm now works for). These organizations are being encouraged to > form a constituency in their own right, but that shouldn't stop them > transitioning from the NCUC, or NCUC trying to help that constituency to > form. > > Each year the board selects a member of the NomCom to represent "Academia & > Research" (you'd think an NCUC related group). They just selected a guy > called Jan Gruntorád, CEO of CESNET, the Academic research network for the > Czech Republic. Past selections have been people with similar backgrounds, > large academic R&D networks (NRENs). Board obviously feels that it's a > non-commercial community not represented in the NCUC (except for KAIST.) > > Very difficult to sell ICANN to these types of organization, I don't see the > board being able to do a good job of this without help, and the NCUC could > do well by offering to help. It'll take outreach and money. > > About Nick's comment. Perhaps an example of people forgetting what was > actually in the NCUC proposal because we've not been asked to discuss it, > just concentrating on the SIC. > > Adam > >> Perhaps this needs to be a larger, more focused discussion sometime, but >> while I think of it it's worth mentioning that there is also a claim in said >> circles that our members are not all sufficiently active and hence our >> diversity is just on paper, which in turn is supposed to allow for "capture" >> by a small cabal. This of course is held against us as well, and will be >> relevant in the NCSG. As you know, the staff's "Suggested Additional >> Stakeholder Group Charter Elements to Ensure Transparency, Openness, >> Fairness and Representativeness Principles" hold, inter alia, that "It is >> important that the Board and the community have the ability to determine >> what parties comprise a particular GNSO structure and who participates in an >> active way....[hence] Each GNSO structure should collect, maintain, and >> publish active and inactive member names identified by membership category >> (if applicable)" >> >> I raised concerns about the reasoning and operational implications of this >> on the last GNSO call, but they were pretty much brushed aside. >> So I guess in some unknown manner members will have to show sufficient >> signs of life on a frequent enough basis for staff to deem them active and >> consider their views to "count" when constituencies state positions. Oh, >> and meeting attendance lists must be published and will be considered too. >> At least, all this undoubtedly will apply to nomcomm constituencies, >> business ones may get the usual pass from the standards to which we're held. >> >> And now I have to reply to the council list about this claim in the SOI >> that we are "not yet sufficiently diverse or robust to select all >> six"...sigh. Pushing back on relentless disinfo does get tiring... >> >> Bill >