Amazing... --c.a. William Drake wrote: > 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 > *********************************************************** > > >