Hi,

Like Mary, I like the concept in principle but have questions about its near-term feasibility in practice.  For example, the council's agenda is packed; the process of digesting and adjusting to restructuring is really just getting underway; NCUC participation in the existing work program (working groups, drafting teams etc) is low and uneven, which affects the optics; and the one item we pressed onto the agenda in recent months---the issue report on vertical integration---already encountered resistance in part on capacity grounds, and has been delayed because the staff is maxed out.  So if we go into the council and propose a new work item that isn't precisely specified and doesn't point to clear and tractable action lines, I imagine it would be a tough sell, and it's not obvious which if any of the other stakeholder groups would support the initiative.  (There is also some question about how this would play given the perception/allegation in some circles that NCUC is sort of a single-issue freedom of expression group that doesn't engage sufficiently on other issues like consumer protection etc.) 

My suggestion is that people who are particularly interested in the concept form a team to flesh it out, e.g. by clearly specifying the problems that need to be addressed and the means by which this could be done, and work up a proposal.  We could then have some dialogue to fine tune and then take a hard look at the council's calendar and think about the best time and way to introduce it and who we might be able to get to support it.

Best,

Bill


On Nov 2, 2009, at 11:04 PM, Mary Wong wrote:

Rebecca and everyone, doing a human rights impact assessment is an excellent suggestion that should definitely be included in the public comments to the current DAG. Perhaps the NCSG (or NCUC) can also include in its public comments a statement of support for the idea?
 
As to bringing it up to and within the GNSO Council process, I'd be glad to except that I am not sure at this time when and how would be the best method. It's not just that the Council has tons on its plate at the moment (as many of you know), which would likely mean little enthusiasm for taking on something new that probably is not a priority item for some of the other Councillors and SGs; it's also the question of what "action item" we (NCSG/NCUC) would be requesting of the Council.
 
Would NCSG/NCUC be requesting a statement of support from the Council or a policy action? Or something else? Each possibility requires a different process (and possibly a different strategy).
 
[NOTE: A policy development process (PDP) may be initiated by the Board, an Advisory Committee (AC) or the Council. It first requires an Issues Report be prepared by ICANN Staff that will include a recommendation as to whether the issue is properly within the scope of the GNSO Council's mandate. The Council then votes on whether to initiate the PDP (unless it is a Board-initiated request). NCUC has, in fact, recently requested an Issues Report on Registrar/Registry integration, which should be finished and sent to the Council later this month.]
 
Perhaps the NCUC and/or the newly-established NCSG Executive Committees can discuss what their preferred option would be, in addition to making the suggestion in public comments to DAG-3? For example, would ALAC be interested in making a joint request?
 
(I'm not trying to be negative - far from it - but am hoping to focus our discussions and actions to have the maximum impact possible within ICANN's arcane processes and organizations.)
 
Cheers
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> Rebecca MacKinnon <[log in to unmask]> 11/1/2009 9:19 AM >>>
Andrew, yes, Google is a founding member of the Global Network Initiative and is working with GNI to develop a human rights assessment process for Internet companies and hopefully the ICT sector more broadly. Perhaps ICANN staff might be more willing to listen to GNI members Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft than to non-commercial users.

Milton, glad you like the idea. If our GNSO councilors are interested in bringing this up through the GNSO, or if anybody participating in the various working groups wants to use the GNI principles on privacy and free expression as a benchmark for whether basic standards are being met on that front please let me know what other contacts/info you need.

Meanwhile I will plan to submit something with this suggestion in the DAG public comments as well.

Cheers,
Rebecca

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Andrew A. Adams <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
milton Mueller wrote:
> This is a fantastic idea, Rebecca.
> As you may know, some of us have been trying to get free expression concerns
> as an officially recognized part of ICANN's agenda for some time (back to
> the beginning, in fact).
> We learned during the new gTLD policy making process (e.g., the "morality
> and public order" section) how difficult that will be and we have learned
> that the U.S. government is completely indifferent, at least the Commerce
> Department that controls relations with ICANN.

I recently attended a talk by David Drummond, Chief Legal Officer and Senior
VP at Google, on Technology and Freedom of Speech. He (and by extension,
Google, since he was speaking officially for the company) have a policy of
promoting freedom of speech quite broadly. They might be a useful ally in
such an effort.



--
IMPORTANT: My Hong Kong University e-mail ([log in to unmask]) will stop working in January. Please use my gmail instead (see below).

Rebecca MacKinnon
Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org
Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong

UK: +44-7759-863406
USA: +1-617-939-3493
HK: +852-6334-8843
Mainland China: +86-13710820364

E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack


***********************************************************
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
***********************************************************