Ay yi yi Begin forwarded message: > From: William Drake <[log in to unmask]> > Date: October 17, 2009 11:57:43 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, > > 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 ***********************************************************