>
> I also have significant concerns about ICANN's plan to penalize
> noncommercial users who are not "active" in the GNSO with less
> representation.
>
> When you vote in a democracy, you don't have to prove that you
> donated 100 hours of community service in order to be entitled to
> a vote, as ICANN proposes. No, this is just another another
> mechanism to gate and minimize user participation and influence.
>
> What about people in developing countries who can't get online and
> can't raise the funds to get to ICANN meetings or to be in a
> position to donate their time to ICANN? They aren't entitled to
> a vote on Internet policy because they aren't "active" enough for
> ICANN? What about the fact ICANN is mainly conducted in English?
> It seems non-English speakers who cannot "actively" participate
> don't deserve a vote either?
>
> ICANN needs to understand it costs noncommercial organizations and
> individuals to participate at ICANN in ways that are unique to all
> other ICANN stakeholders. There are significant bars to ICANN
> participation that ICANN cannot use to "gate" to representation of
> noncommercial users. Not in a democratic institution accountable
> to the global public interest.
>
> Robin
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2009, at 2:17 AM, 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.
>>
>> 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
>