more FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: William Drake <[log in to unmask]> > Date: October 19, 2009 8:08:45 PM 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, > > On Oct 19, 2009, at 6:40 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > >> Bill, >> >> This is going to be my last message on the subject. Although >> interesting, I >> think that we should continue in Seoul, where in a F2F situation we >> will >> reduce the risk for further miscommunication and misunderstandings. > > Agreed >> >> A few clarifications: >> >>> >>> "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. >> >> The confusion arises, IMHO, from the fact that we use the word >> "Constituency" to mean different things. >> I mean "the body that, as is right now, has īnter alia the right to >> have >> councillors in the GNSO Council". And, unless mistaken, the concept >> of >> constituency as described is not what NCUC wants. And I do believe >> that the >> NCUC has stated this openly. > > Right, we suggest no hardwiring, but rather democratic elections > (which in most plausible scenarios would yield the same > results...unless you green lighted the CP80 censorship constituency, > they might have trouble getting broad-based support). But so do > you: you said "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." So by your own definition > above, this would mean you've decided constituencies will no longer > exist. But this doesn't fit with you saying that the SIC was > struggling to maintain the concept against the opposition of NCUC. > How can you be agreeing with our position and at the same time > working to overcome our position? I mean, I like a good oxymoron > as much as anybody, but this makes my circuits fizz out. > > Anyway, let's chalk it up to miscommunication and move on. > >> When you say that NCUC is in favour of "constituencies", you mean >> "the >> bodies that are defined in the NCUC charter as being >> constituencies", which, >> unless I am mistaken, have many rights but not the right of voting >> councillors. >> So, one way to progress is to say that that everybody is in favour of >> "Constituencies", but that we need to come to an agreement to what >> will be >> the exact "powers" of the constituencies. > > Agreed. As far as I can tell, everyone sees the 'powers' fairly > similarly, except that NCUC thinks council seats should be filled by > elections, SIC thinks the EC should just hash out the allocation of > seats (which to us sounds like a recipe for trench warfare), and > some in ALAC feel there should be hard wiring. Hopefully we can > have a focused discussion on the relative merits of these approaches > and the trajectories/scenarios they may point to in order to move > this to another level. > >>> >>> [...] (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.) >> >> I think I have explained this a zillion times, but I can say this >> for the >> zillionth+1 time. > > Not to me, sorry > >> One of the roles of the constituencies in the initial design of >> ICANN was to >> provide a mechanism to define and register membership. This was >> addressing a >> concern, which was to avoid capture by a group of people who were >> joining >> the process in a category where they were not really qualified to be. >> During the discussions related to the review, in the consultations >> with Ry >> and Rar we realized that this risk was non-existent for them, >> because in the >> way we had defined the SGs (i.e. as being the "Contracted Parties") >> we had >> an automatic mechanism to sort out the issue: if the organization >> has a >> contract with ICANN, it is in, otherwise it is out. And by virtue >> of this, >> we also had a complete list of the membership. >> This happened because during the process there was rough consensus >> by the >> community (although I was personally against, having preferred a >> "Suppliers" >> vs. "Consumers" approach) to have the "Contracted" vs. "Non- >> Contracted" >> separation. >> In the case of the non-contracted parties, we do not have such a >> mechanism. >> Check, for instance, the discussion about the potential individual >> registrants constituency, where one of the debates is how to sort >> out who is >> a commercial and who is a non-commercial registrant, and how can we >> monitor >> that the status at the moment of the registration is kept over >> time. Same >> issue if we think about a business entity that is also an IP >> holder, how we >> determine who is an internet service provider and who is not, etc. >> In simple >> words, we do not have an easy mechanism to determine who is >> qualified and >> who is not to join a SG. However, we have that for the >> constituencies, in >> the way that constituencies are currently defined and chartered. >> So, the proposal of the SIC (and the decision by the Board) has >> been that we >> could get rid of the constituencies in the contractual house, but >> not in the >> non-contractual house. You may agree or disagree with the decision, >> that has >> been already taken by the Board and is not on the table for further >> discussion, but this is the explanation of the rationale for it. > > Ok, well thanks >> >> >>> >>> Entirely separate from the principal of constituencies are two >>> issues: >>> >>> [...] >> >> You make good points here. I am looking forward to discuss these, >> among >> other things, in Seoul. I would like to keep this email short, >> addressing >> just clarifications and potential misunderstandings. >> >> >>> >>> 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. >> >> Quite interestingly, I just read the email from Dominik Filipp, who >> agrees >> with you that the SIC did not follow a bottom-up process. >> However, what he objects on, is exactly the opposite: for him >> constituencies >> should be not only created and approved, but should have voting >> power in the >> council. The fact is that the bottom-up process is usually defined as >> "taking the decision that suits me" ;>) > >> >> On a more serious vein, I invite everybody to take a step back and >> a deep >> breath. We started this process years ago, with a council where the >> voting >> ratio between non-commercial and commercial users was 1:3. The BGC >> before, >> and the SIC[K] after the changes in the Board committee structure, >> have >> analysed proposals, discussed with the community (all parts of the >> community), gathered feedback, proposed a solution, presented the >> solution >> to the different parts, rediscussed over and over again with all >> those who >> were opposing it from different sides, repeated these iterations >> several >> times, and arrived now at the final step where hopefully in a >> couple of >> weeks we will have this historic change, and a GNSO Council where the >> commercial and non-commercial communities are represented on a base >> of >> parity. >> In order to achieve this, it was necessary to go through an interim >> phase, >> during which we had transitional charters, giving ourselves time to >> think >> thoroughly the new composition and functioning of the SGs, but in a >> situation in which we were progressing from the past, and >> established as a >> matter of principle the parity between commercial and non-commercial. >> I was prepared to hear the grumbling of the commercial users, >> noting that >> they will be less represented than before, but I was incredibly >> astonished >> by the fact that all what I am hearing is the bitching of the >> different >> components of the non-commercial community, fighting bitterly for the >> control of the additional seats, yelling and screaming at the SIC >> from >> different sides, apparently forgetting completely that it was the >> BGC and >> SIC who recommended in first place to have this new balance. > > We all recognize and appreciate the rebalancing, admittedly more in > principal than in practice. But 1) there's been a pretty fair bit > of bitching from the CSG too, which inter alia you cited as a reason > we ought to just suck it up and go along with the SIC charter, and > 2) we're not fighting for control of seats, we're arguing the > noncommercial space should be organized in a democratic manner that > doesn't lock us in perpetuity into precisely the sort of > dysfunctional competition you decry. > >> To be honest, if I had the chance to rewind the clock, over my dead >> body I >> would have ever accepted the task to deal with this matter, and >> would have >> much preferred to leave things as they were, raising my arms to show >> powerlessness, and suggesting to have everybody getting together >> and achieve >> consensus in a real "bottom-up way", and to come back to the Board >> when a >> consensus was found. Anybody has a guess on where we would be now? >> My bet is >> that we would still be with the old GNSO structure, as who likes >> the status >> quo would have prevented any move. > > Plenty of angst and frustration to go around, alas. > >> The bottom-up process is not a process by which the decision is >> taken by the >> bottom, but a process in which the Board consults the community to >> the >> maximum extent possible, takes idea and proposals from the >> community to the >> maximum extent possible, but then makes a decision that does not >> necessarily >> please everybody. >> >> >>> >>> Unfortunately, the consultation, negotiation and compromise >>> didn't really involve NCUC. >> >> What?!? >> In Sydney alone the SIC had two official meetings with NCUC, plus the >> discussions in the corridors, plus emails before and after. And >> even outside >> the SIC, other Board members were involved. I know that neither you >> nor >> Milton were there, but other NCUC folks, including the Chair, were >> there, >> you can check with them. > > I have, but let's not rehash the past at this point. What matters > now is we sit and talk through the question of institutional design > in a reasoned and depersonalized manner while bracketing all the > other stuff that is not integral to it. >> >> >>> 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. >> >> I hope so. > > Ditto. 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 ***********************************************************