I start to translate in french since today morning and I will send the draft the next week. Baudouin 2009/8/21 Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> > Attached and below is the final draft of the "Top 10 Myths" document. I've > reordered the list since yesterday per Seth's suggestion and a couple minor > tweaks. > Please feel free to blog it, repost it, TRANSLATE it to other languages, > etc. > > It would also be useful to draft a timeline document of the NCSG charter > drafting process. Any volunteers? > > Cedric is also working on a media release about the NCUC letter and the top > 10 myths doc. Thanks! > > Best, > Robin > > Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN From The > Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) > > 21 August 2009 > > * * > *Myth 1* > *“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 143 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 2* > *“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 3* > *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 4* > *"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 5* > *"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 143 members including > 73 noncommercial organizations and 70 individuals in 48 countries. This > is an increase of more than 215% since the parity principle was established. > [1] <#1233e4ff337bc68d__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 the Commercial Stakeholder Group will represent the > United States. > * * > *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* > *"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 8* > *"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 9* > *"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. NCUC’s proposal made > it easy to form new constituencies, unlike the SIC charter, which makes it > difficult to form new constituencies. > * * > *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 - 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] <#1233e4ff337bc68d__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] > > > > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91 Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571 email:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> http://akimambo.unblog.fr http://educticafrique.ning.com/