More Begin forwarded message: > From: William Drake <[log in to unmask]> > Date: October 18, 2009 11:18:41 AM GMT+02:00 > To: Roberto Gaetano <[log in to unmask]> > Cc: "'At-Large Worldwide'" <[log in to unmask]>, > "'ALAC Working List'" <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders? > > Hi Roberto, > > Thanks for your reply, glad we're talking about this stuff, helpful. > > On Oct 18, 2009, at 1:01 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > >> >> Bill, >> >> We might have a communication problem. >> What I meant, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that: >> >> - the NCUC was against the creation of constituencies as groups >> that had >> automatic voting seat(s) in the Council >> - groups did not see any interest in doing the work of creating >> constituencies if they were guaranteed no seats in the Council > > If that is what you meant, then yes indeed we have a communication > problem. You wrote, > > "But the main point for the SIC to maintain the concept of > constituency, against the open opposition of NCUC," which sounded to > me like you were saying the main point for the SIC is to maintain > the concept of constituency, against the open opposition of NCUC. > Sorry for my confusion. > > Bear in mind, I'e been hearing this kind of thing for months now, > including from board members in MC, and there's list traffic this > morning indicating that others here were not clear on the point. So > especially at a time when some ALAC folks are proposing > constituencies, it's a cause for concern when someone in your > position of authority appears to be saying NCUC opposes the whole > concept. That would be the RySG, not us. (BTW, why did SIC ok RySG > eliminating constituencies in their charter? I never understood the > rationale for not having harmonized structures across SGs, and it > makes the misimpression about NCUC's charter which explicitly > provides for constituencies seem all the more odd.) > > Entirely separate from the principal of constituencies are two issues: > > *Whether council seats should be hard wired. On this we agree with > the SIC, as you know. I understand there are folks here who feel > differently, and say nobody will want to do the work of launching a > constituency if they don't automatically get a council seat. I'm > not convinced that's true---I know I and others I've talked to > wouldn't feel that's necessarily a barrier, if per the NCUC proposed > charter constituencies could run candidates in an open election and > in all likelihood get one that way---but I understand the concern > and that's a design issue we ought to be able to talk through and > build confidence. > > *Whether constituencies should be formed soon under the SIC/staff > transitional charter, rather than waiting a little while until a > mutually satisfactory final arrangement can be arrived at. We > remain concerned that doing it under the SIC/staff version would > lock that in and make a joint review and revision impossible. The > timing here is up to you folks on the board, not us. We'd prefer to > resolve things with you ASAP, and constituency launches could then > proceed as soon as there are viable proposals. Unfortunately, I > think NCUC folks have contributed to confusion on this point by > saying the review should happen within a year, which some have > processed as meaning we want to wait a year before anything can be > launched. Within a year doesn't mean in a year, we can do this as > soon as you're ready. > > >> Is this a fair representation of the reality, yes or no? If no, I >> apologize, >> as I did really miss something important. If, on the other hand, >> the answer >> is yes, I stand behind my whole post. >> >> The question, as I understood it, was to find a balance that could >> have >> taken into account to the maximum extent possible these two >> different and >> apparently radically opposed positions. The fact that the solution >> is being >> shot from both sides confirms that it was not an easy problem, and >> that >> positions were really opposed. The point is now where we go from >> here. Can >> we discuss and see if this is a solution that can work or not? > > I sure hope so, and we are looking forward to meeting with the board > and getting the process started. But let's make sure we understand > the positions and the differences between them accurately, that'll > help facilitate things a productive dialogue. >> >> To make statements that imply that SIC has not read the NCUC >> charters is not >> helpful. > > Didn't mean to imply this, but rather that if you believe NCUC > opposes constituencies as you appeared to be saying, you might look > again at the NCUC charter which endorses constituencies and suggests > mechanisms for their formation and collaboration. > >> We have two possibilities, one is to get together and to make it >> work, the other one is to insist that the bad and ugly SIC has >> imposed a >> top-down solution against the will of the masses. > > I didn't characterize the SIC as bad and ugly. It is unquestionably > true though that the SIC imposed a solution that was opposed by > NCUC's 80 organizational and 87 individual members and a wide array > of non-member supporters and was supported by 3 people. If you > don't like calling this top down, ok, give me another term for > something done by the board over the strenuous opposition of the > community in question. I'm not hung up on language, just facts. > >> I see these as alternative >> positions, for the simple fact that accepting and propagating the >> latter >> means not to have understood (or to pretend not having understood) >> the >> amount of consultation, negotiation and compromise that went into the >> solution, which is the exact opposite of having imposed a top-down >> view. > > Unfortunately, the consultation, negotiation and compromise didn't > really involve NCUC. But we can still do that, and very much look > forward to working with you in Seoul and beyond to arrive at a > lasting solution that is supported by the actually existing NC > community. > > All the best, > > Bill >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: William Drake [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >>> Sent: Saturday, 17 October 2009 11:58 >>> To: Roberto Gaetano >>> Cc: At-Large Worldwide; ALAC Working List >>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders? >>> >>> Hi Roberto, >>> >>> May I just correct once again one whopping bit of bad info, please. >>> >>> On Oct 17, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: >>> >>>> Beau, >>>> >>>>> >>>>> By the way, is it true what I heard that the three newly appointed >>>>> GNSO people have now been hard-wired in to two-year terms? I don't >>>>> really see a constituency model working under those circumstances. >>>>> Who's going to join a constituency if they have to wait >>> two years to >>>>> be able to directly elect a representative? No consumer group I am >>>>> aware of is going to want to do that. >>>> >>>> >>>> I think that we will need to clarify many things in Seoul, one of >>>> which is the reason for certain decisions of the SIC. >>>> >>>> For instance, the SIC has decided, after long discussion, >>> not to have >>>> an automatic link between creation of a constituency and >>> establishment >>>> of a seat in the Council. The reasons against this position include >>>> what you correctly point out, i.e. that it will be more >>> difficult to >>>> get people's interest if there's no immediate >>> representation in terms >>>> of voting rights. >>>> However, there are also reasons for taking this approach. >>> One of these >>>> is that we have to avoid the "frivolous" creation of constituencies >>>> for the simple purpose of getting a vote. A bit like create empty >>>> shells as registrars to have a higher firing power for getting >>>> valuable names. >>>> Another >>>> observation is that in the "old" council it was exactly the >>> fact that >>>> the creation of a new constituency would have altered the voting >>>> balance that de facto prevented the creation of any new >>> constituency >>>> in 10 years. >>>> >>>> But the main point for the SIC to maintain the concept of >>>> constituency, against the open opposition of NCUC, but to keep it >>>> without an automatic >>> >>> NCUC is NOT and has NEVER been against the concept of >>> constituencies, period. I do not understand what the purpose >>> would be in telling ALAC people something about NCUC that is >>> patently untrue, but it really does not facilitate trust >>> building and the collegial resolution of the issue. The >>> charter NCUC submitted, and which you set aside without >>> comment, has an page of clear language about the formation >>> and operation of constituencies in Section 2.3. >>> http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/ncsg-petition >> -charter.pdf >>> I would encourage you to read it if you have not. A few >>> key bits of note include: >>> >>> ------------- >>> >>> *Constituencies are self-defined groupings of NCSG members organized >>> around some shared policy goals (e.g. consumer protection, privacy); >>> shared identity (e.g., region or country of origin, gender, language >>> group); type of organization (e.g., research networks, philanthropic >>> foundations) - or any other grouping principle that might affect >>> members' stance on domain names policy. >>> >>> *There is no requirement that NCSG members join a constituency. >>> >>> *When at least 3 organizational members or at least 10 >>> individual NCSG >>> members volunteer to join the Constituency on the public list within >>> two months of the publication of the notification of intent the >>> prospective Constituency becomes eligible to schedule a >>> meeting (which >>> can be either in person or online). >>> >>> *The eligible constituency holds a public meeting(s) to draft a >>> charter and appoint an official representative of the constituency. >>> The meeting(s) can be online but must be open to observation by the >>> general public. >>> >>> *The proposed constituency charter is submitted to the NCSG Policy >>> Committee for ratification. >>> >>> *Once accepted by the PC the constituency application will be >>> sent to >>> the ICANN Board for approval. The Board shall also serve as the >>> vehicle for appeals to NCSG decisions on the recognition of a >>> constituency. >>> >>> *Constituencies have a right to: 1. Place one voting >>> representative on >>> the Policy Committee; 2. Delegate members to GNSO >>> working groups and >>> task forces; 3. Issue statements on GNSO Policy >>> Development Processes >>> which are included in the >>> official NCSG response, but marked as constituency positions, >>> and not >>> necessarily the position of NCSG as a whole. >>> >>> ------------- >>> >>> I do not know how this possibly can be characterized as >>> opposition to >>> the concept of a constituency. >>> >>> The principal difference with the charter you've imposed on us, as >>> we've explained time and again, is that we do not think it >>> wise to set >>> up constituencies as purely self-regarding silos that compete >>> against >>> each other for council seats, recognition and influence, and thereby >>> spend their time fighting and jockeying for position rather than >>> working together to advance noncommercial public interest >>> perspectives >>> in ICANN. We think it is better for constituencies to >>> collaborate in >>> an integrated community. Hence, we did not think it sensible >>> to hard >>> wire council seats (which would get absurd if the number of >>> constituencies exceeds six, as it hopefully will...we're glad you >>> agreed on this), and instead suggested that GNSO Council >>> Representatives be elected directly by all NCSG members in an annual >>> SG-wide vote. To secure a council seat, a constituency on consumer >>> protection, registrants, privacy, gender, freedom of speech or >>> whatever else would simply have to be a vibrant group that puts >>> forward a candidate and vision that others find persuasive. Given >>> that noncommercial people tend to share certain broad values and >>> priorities, I'm hard pressed to imagine that, for example, a solid >>> consumer constituency that actually comprises noncommercial >>> actors and >>> advocates for the public interest would have a hard time getting >>> support from people who care about privacy, speech, and so on. So >>> it'd be a matter of persuading colleagues rather than having a >>> birthright fiefdom within which one does one's own thing and ignores >>> everyone else. >>> >>> We understand that questions have been raised about voting >>> formula and >>> whether it might make sense to put in place mechanisms to >>> prevent the >>> 'capture' of the council, and we've said we're open to viable >>> suggestions on that score. Have yet to hear one. One might add that >>> if NCUC's proposed charter had been approved and constituency >>> formation were made as easy as we'd hoped, the NCUC itself >>> would have >>> ceased to exist, and those of our current 80 organizational and 87 >>> individual members who wanted to off and form constituencies on >>> privacy, gender, or whatever else would have done so. So there'd be >>> no NCUC to be capturing anything in the first place. In contrast, >>> under the SIC charter, NCUC would be nuts to disband, inter alia >>> because it'd leave our members homeless, especially the >>> individuals. >>> Hard to see how that would be good for ICANN. >>> >>>> voting power, against the obvious concerns of who wants to build >>>> new >>>> constituencies, is the leit-motiv that has guided the whole >>> process >>>> of the >>>> review: move the focus away from the vote, which is by its nature >>>> divisive, >>>> onto the consensus building process. >>>> New constituencies will not have the right to appoint their "own" >>>> councillors, but will have the right to participate in WGs >>> and other >>>> policy >>>> making processes and bodies, will have support from ICANN staff and >>>> resources to self-organize, will be able to participate >>> with their own >>>> representatives in the Executive Committee of the NCSG, etc. >>>> In simple words, what we have tried to do is to create a balance >>>> and >>>> hopefully a possible way to coexist and, in time, to collaborate, >>>> for all >>>> the different components of the wide and diverse non-commercial >>>> internet >>>> community. Somebody on this list has spoken about >>> "reconsideration" >>>> of the >>>> Board's decision. This is surely possible. But what I would >>> propose >>>> is to >>>> try to discuss and understand if what the SIC has proposed >>> can work in >>>> practice, although it is not going to be perfect for anybody, >>>> before >>>> shooting it down and start all over again. This discussion >>> is for me >>>> one of >>>> the main priorities, if not the first priority altogether, >>> in Seoul, >>>> which >>>> as you all know will mark the end of my term as Director. >>>> >>>> The ALAC and the NCUC are two big parts of this picture, the only >>>> organized >>>> bodies in ICANN so far (for non-commercial users), I personally >>>> think that >>>> the first step can be to have a joint discussion in Seoul. Bill's >>>> proposal >>>> of meeting in an event that is not only work, but also >>> social, goes >>>> in this >>>> sense, methinks. >>> >>> Here we agree. And I think finding common ground will be a >>> lot easier >>> if ALAC colleagues are not laboring under the false impression that >>> NCUC somehow wants to prevent them or other from forming >>> constituencies, hence the above. Our main concern has been that we >>> first have an opportunity to work out a final, non-divisive charter >>> with the board, after which constituency launches could begin in >>> earnest. In contrast, launching constituencies under the SIC >>> charter >>> would likely lock us into that framework and engender the very >>> fragmentation the meeting is intended to help overcome. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bill > *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland [log in to unmask] www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************