This is really well done and needs to be widely widely widely circulated. Grande Robin! --c.a. Robin Gross wrote: > Attached (and below) is the latest draft of the "Top 10 Myths" article. Thanks > very much for the feedback to improve it so far. Please send any additional > edits and suggestions asap, so we can publish this document in the next day or so. > > Thank you, > Robin > > > > > > Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN > > From The Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) > > 20 August 2009 > > > > */Myth 1/* > */"Existing civil society groups are not representative or diverse enough."/* > /Untrue by any reasonable standard/. The current civil society grouping, the > Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC), now has 142 members including 73 > noncommercial organizations and 69 individuals in 48 countries. This is an > increase of 215% since the parity principle was established.[1] <#_ftn1> > Noncommercial participation in ICANN is now more diverse than any other > constituency, so it is completely unfair to level this charge at NCUC without > applying it to others. Even back in 2006, an independent report by the London > School of Economics showed that NCUC was the most diverse geographically, had > the largest number of different people serving on the GNSO Council over time, > and the highest turn-over in council representatives of any of the 6 > constituencies. In contrast, the commercial users’ constituency has recycled > the same 5 people on the Council for a decade and upon the GNSO reform, the > first 3 of 6 GNSO Councilors from Commercial Stakeholder Group will represent > the United States. > > */Myth 2/* > */"The NCUC charter would give the same small group 6 votes instead of 3."/* > /False/. For the past 8 months, NCUC has stated that it will dissolve when the > NCSG is formed. It does not make sense to have a "Noncommercial Users > Constituency" and a "Noncommercial Stakeholders Group,” as they are synonymous > terms. Thus, NCUC leaders would _not_ be in control of a new NCSG – a > completely new leadership would be elected. Under the NCUC charter proposal, > all noncommercial groups and individuals would vote on Council seats, not just > former NCUC members. Strict geographic diversity requirements would mean that > candidates from throughout the world would have to be selected even if they > could not get a majority of total votes. > > */Myth 3/* > */“More civil society groups will get involved if the Board intervenes.”/* > /A complete illusion./ Board imposition of its own charter and its refusal to > listen to civil society groups will be interpreted as rejection of the many > groups that commented and as discrimination against civil society > participation. ICANN’s reputation among noncommercial groups will be > irreparably damaged unless this action is reversed or a compromise is found. > Even if we were to accept these actions and try to work with them, the total > impact of the staff/SIC NCSG charter will be to handicap noncommercial groups > and make them less likely to participate. The appointment of representatives by > the Board disenfranchises noncommercial groups and individuals. The > constituency-based SIC structure requires too much organizational overhead for > most noncommercial organizations to sustain; it also pits groups against each > other in political competition for votes and members. Most noncommercial > organizations will not enter the ICANN GNSO under those conditions. > > */Myth 4/* > */"NCUC will not share council seats with other noncommercial constituencies."/* > /Wrong/. NCUC’s proposed charter was designed to allow dozens of new > noncommercial constituencies to form at will and to advance their own candidates > for Council seats. Given the diversity and breadth of NCUC's membership, many > different constituencies with competing agendas are likely to form. The > organic, bottom-up self-forming approach to constituency formation is much > better than the board/staff approach – and more consistent with the BGC > recommendations. The SIC charter makes constituency formation very top-heavy > and difficult, and gives the staff and Board arbitrary power to decide how > “representative” or “significant” new participants are. Because it ties > constituencies to Council seats, every new constituency instigates power > struggles over the allocation of Council seats. > > */Myth 5/* > */"The NCUC wants to take away the Board's right to approve constituencies."/* > /False. / People who said this have obviously not read the NCUC-proposed > charter. NCUC’s proposal let the board approve or disapprove of new > constituencies formed under its proposed charter. Our proposal simply offered > to apply some simple, objective criteria (e.g., number of applicants) to new > constituency groupings and then make a recommendation to the Board. The idea > was to reduce the burden of forming a new constituency for both the applicants > and the Board. > > */Myth 6/* > */"ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society drafted > charter."/* > /False./ One ALAC leader said that she prefers the staff drafted charter. > ICANN staff ran away with this comment and falsely told the ICANN Board of > Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted charter. In fact, the formal > statement actually approved by ALAC said that many members of ALAC supported the > NCUC proposal and that “the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a > very good move in the right direction.” > > */Myth 7/* > */"Civil society is divided on the NCSG charter issue."/* > /Wrong./ There has never been such an overwhelmingly lopsided public comment > period in ICANN’s history. While ICANN’s staff is telling the Board that civil > society is divided, the clear, documented consensus among civil society groups > has been against the ICANN drafted NCSG charter and in favor of the NCUC one. > Board members who rely only on staff-provided information may believe civil > society is divided, but Board members who have actually read the public comments > can see the solidarity of civil society against what ICANN is trying to impose > on them. > > > */Myth 8/* > */The outpouring of civil society opposition can be dismissed as the product of > a 'letter writing campaign.' /* > /An outrageous claim/. Overwhelming civil society opposition to the SIC charter > emerged not once, but twice. In addition, there is the massive growth in NCUC > membership stimulated by the broader community’s opposition to the staff and > Board actions. Attempts to minimize the degree to which civil society has been > undermined by these developments are simply not going to work, and reveal a > shocking degree of insularity and arrogance. ICANN is required to have public > comment periods because it is supposed to listen to and be responsive to public > opinion. Public opinion results from networks of communication and public > dialogue on controversial issues, including organized calls to action. No > policy or bylaw gives ICANN staff the authority to decide that it can discount > or ignore nearly all of the groups who have taken an interest in the GNSO > reforms, simply because they have taken a position critical of the staff’s. > ICANN's attempt to discount critical comments by labeling them a "letter writing > campaign" undermines future participation and confidence in ICANN public processes. > > */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. None of the noncommercial organizations that commented on the NCSG > Charter said they would participate to ICANN only if NCSG's Charter secured the > constituencies a guaranteed seat on the GNSO. > > */Myth 10/* > */“The purpose of a constituency is to have your very own GNSO Council Seat.”/* > 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 -- 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 > (Registries and Registrars) 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. > > > *_Join NCUC_* > All noncommercial organizations and individuals are invited to join NCUC and > participate in policy development in ICANN’s GNSO. Bring your experience and > your perspective to Internet policy discussions and help protect noncommercial > users of the Internet by participating at ICANN via the NCUC. Join today: > http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/main/authorization/signUp? > > *_Glossary of ICANN Acronyms_* > > > ALAC <http://alac.icann.org/>* - At-Large Advisory Committee* > > > ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for considering and > providing advice on the activities of the ICANN, as they relate to the interests > of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" community). > > > *gTLD - Generic Top Level Domain* > > > > Most TLDs with three or more characters are referred to as "generic" TLDs, or > "gTLDs". They can be subdivided into two types, "sponsored" TLDs (sTLDs) and > "unsponsored TLDs (uTLDs), as described in more detail below. > > > > In the 1980s, seven gTLDs (.com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and .org) were > created. Domain names may be registered in three of these (.com, .net, and .org) > without restriction; the other four have limited purposes. Over the next twelve > years, various discussions occurred concerning additional gTLDs, leading to the > selection in November 2000 of seven new TLDs for introduction. These were > introduced in 2001 and 2002. Four of the new TLDs (.biz, .info, .name, and > .pro) are unsponsored. The other three new TLDs (.aero, .coop, and .museum) are > sponsored. > > > > *GNSO <http://gnso.icann.org/> - Generic Names Supporting Organization* > > The GNSO is responsible for developing policy recommendations to the ICANN Board > that relate to generic top-level domains (gTLDs). > > > The GNSO is the body of 6 constituencies, as follows: the Commercial and > Business constituency, the gTLD Registry constituency, the ISP constituency, the > non-commercial constituency, the registrar's constituency, and the IP > constituency. > > However, the GNSO is in the process of restructuring away from a framework of 6 > constituencies to 4 stakeholder groups: Commercial, Noncommercial, Registrar, > Registry. The Noncommercial and Commercial Stakeholder Groups together make up > the “Non-contracting Parties House” in the new bi-cameral GNSO; and the > Registrar and Registry Stakeholder Groups will together comprise the > “Contracting Parties House” in the new GNSO structure (beginning Oct. 2009). > > > *ICANN <http://www.icann.org/index.html> - The Internet Corporation for Assigned > Names and Numbers* > > The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an > internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for > Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, > generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, > and root server system management functions > > * * > *NCUC - Noncommercial Users Constituency* > > > The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for noncommercial > organizations and individuals in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers <http://icann.org/> (ICANN) Generic Names Supporting Organization > <http://gnso.icann.org/> (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN policy making > and Board selection, it develops and supports positions that protect > noncommercial communication and activity on the Internet. NCUC works to promote > the public interest in ICANN policy and is the only noncommercial constituency > in ICANN’s GSNO (there are 5 commercial constituencies). The NCUC is open to > noncommercial organizations and individuals involved in education, community > networking, public policy advocacy, development, promotion of the arts, digital > rights, children's welfare, religion, consumer protection, scientific research, > human rights and many other areas. NCUC maintains a website at http://ncdnhc.org. > > > *NCSG - Noncommercial Stakeholders Group* > > The GNSO is in the process of being restructured from “6 constituencies” to “4 > stakeholder groups”, including a Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) into > which all noncommercial organizations and individuals will belong for policy > development purposes, including members of the Noncommercial Users Constituency > (NCUC). The NCSG and the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) will together > comprise the “Non-contracting Parties House” in the new bicameral GNSO structure > beginning October 2009. > > *_Links to Background Information:_* > *_ _* > *NCUC Letter to ICANN Board and CEO on NCSG Charter Controversy:* > http://bit.ly/BiOg8 > *_ _* > *Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC):* > http://ncdnhc.org > > *NCUC submitted NCSG charter proposal:* > http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-petition-charter.pdf > > *Robin Gross on “/Is ICANN Accountable to the Public Interest?”:/*** > http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCUC-ICANN-Injustices.html > > *ICANN GNSO Chair Avri Doria on “/Why I Joined the NCUC/**”:* > _*http://tiny.cc/EPDtx*_ > > *Internet Governance Project: “/4 ICANN Board members dissent in vote on NCSG > charter/**”:* > _*http://tiny.cc/S5CjP*___ > > *2006 London School of Economics Independent Report on GNSO:* > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15sep06.htm > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > [1] <#_ftnref1> We encourage those GNSO constituencies who claim is NCUC is > insufficiently large enough to deserve representational parity with commercial > users on the GNSO Council to publish their own constituency’s current membership > roster, as NCUC does at: http://ncdnhc.org/page/membership-roster. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > >