Hi everyone

 

Just 3 quick observations for now (and yes, I know this is a public list) -

 

1. Whatever happened to the SIC's willingness to discuss potential appointees with those of us non-commercial individuals/users/organizations that expressed willingness to discuss/negotiate the SIC-Staff draft Charter in Sydney? Weren't there then, and up to 24 July, more than 3 willing, qualified persons - including new entrants to ICANN, technical folks, researchers, consumer representatives and individuals from multiple countries - whose willingness to serve was known to the SIC before the Board meeting?

 

2. It doesn't seem to matter how much, quickly or diverse the NCUC membership is, grows or becomes. Despite being presented with actual statistics of membership growth and diversity, the current NCUC is still not diverse or representative enough. By whose measure? And using what criteria?

 

3. The current NCUC has clearly and publicly expressed welcome and support for a consumer constituency. Indeed, we reached out to Beau Brendler in Mexico and in Sydney, amongst other people and groups. We have always said, and Beau has also noted, that a consumer constituency fits very well within the NCSG framework - but it is not up to NCUC to approve such a constituency. Aside from reaching out to consumer representatives (which we have done) and encouraging them to form a constituency and join NCUC/NCSG, what more are we supposed to do?

 

4. Ironically, the ICANN call for Statements of Interest for non-commercials in relation to the three new NCSG seats is something ICANN could and should have easily done for/with the existing NCUC, since the Board has always known (and expressed sympathy for) the lack of resources that unpaid volunteers face as a major obstacle toward outreach. Perhaps the only inescapable conclusion from all this is that only those non-commercial persons/entities that meet with the Board's and/or the Staff's approval can constitute worthy participants in the ICANN environment?

 

5. I am touched by and glad for Avri's statement, and welcome her - and others like her - whose principles and hard work are beyond reproach. It saddens me tremendously that, with the JPA issue and a new CEO, ICANN elects at this moment to close down dialogue with those non-commercial participants that have worked so very hard to be more inclusive and open to negotiation with everyone in the ICANN community. We need to mobilize now, to highlight the prejudices and inequities that are entrenched within the ICANN process.

 

Mary

 

>>> Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]> 8/6/2009 3:37 AM >>>
Why not compromise.  Attempt to restart a process
where the SIC and NCUC charters are considered
side by side.

The NCUC has three council seats.

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.  So why not
accept the interim and offer to work with the
board to help identify possible candidates from
such groups, and to try and bring those groups
into the NCUC or to encourage them to form a
constituency (as consumer groups seem to be
trying to do, can NCUC help them?)

And then look to negotiate differences between
the charters.  Can we accept that councillors
could be selected through a hybrid constituency
based model, where a general membership selects a
slate which is then voted on by constituencies in
an Executive Committee? (just an idea...) And at
the same time emphasize that policy must be
developed in a bottom-up fashion at the
stakeholder-wide level.  Can we come up with
specific rule based criteria for the creation of
new constituencies (no one will apply to the
vague process in the SIC charter, it is no better
than what we've had since the GNSO was created.)

I think we were set back from discussing workable
compromises when the SIC draft was put forward
and the NCUC draft effectively taken off from
discussion.  Ours and the community's responses
were made to the SIC draft, but we did not
discuss and modify in response to comments the
NCUC draft. Where there was criticism of the NCUC
draft was on the static position of some months
ago.

I have heard some people assert that the NCUC has
never shown any willingness to compromise from
its criticism of anything that it hadn't written,
yet claiming that the NCUC documents were still
open to negotiation -- so a public attempt to
engage in negotiation would at least put this to
the test.

Think there are two options: some form of appeal
to the Board's decisions, i.e. reconsideration,
obmudsman (who has the power to open all kinds of
email trails, discover what documents were
presented, what was said), or independent review.
Or more sensible, offer to negotiate, offer some
compromise.

Adam (not on behalf of GLOCOM NCUC member, or
ALAC of which I a member.  Purely personal
observation.)





>Here is ICANN's announcement calling for
>Statements of Interest from those interested in
>volunteering to be appointed by the board to
>represent noncommercial users:
>
><http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05aug09-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05aug09-en.htm
>
>"... Of the four new Stakeholder Group Charters
>approved by the Board last week, this temporary
>seat selection by the Board is unique to the
>NCSG. It reflects a fundamental view that the
>current non-commercial community participation
>in the GNSO is not yet sufficiently diverse or
>robust to select all six of the NCSG's allocated
>Council seats (as was originally intended by the
>Board's GNSO Improvements initiative)...."
>
>ICANN claims we are not "sufficiently diverse or
>robust enough to select all six" GNSO Council
>seats.  Yet NCUC represents 137 noncommercial
>organizations and individuals from 48 countries.
> Our membership has increased by 205% since the
>parity principle was established.  There never
>was any bar for us to meet - that rhetoric was
>invented by the commercial constituencies and
>selectively adopted by ICANN staff to justify
>why 137 noncommercial organizations and
>individuals are not entitled to elect their own
>representation.
>
>Too bad noncommercial users will not be given
>electoral parity with commercial users as the
>BGC originally promised.  Another empty promise,
>another rigged process.  ICANN is more
>aggressive than ever in squeezing out
>noncommercial users in policy development.  So
>sad.
>
>Robin
>
>
>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>http://www.ipjustice.org
> e: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]