June 17, 2010
To the NCSG:
For the sake of clarity, I am writing one email in response
to the email exchanges from various members of the NCSG Executive Council and NCSG
community beginning on June 16th regarding the filing of a NOIF for
a proposed not-for-profit constituency. I am very concerned with the tone of
these emails, but more importantly, the careless manner in which my volunteer efforts
spent exploring the engagement of not-for-profit organizations has been
described. Ironically, this group has self identified itself as representing
“civil society” among other interests, but unfortunately, these
email exchanges have been less than civil. If you believe my actions have been
inappropriate, I would have expected that you would have at least read the
filings and my emails before making such strong comments. Comments made “off
the cuff” or without proper due diligence, are very harmful in this
environment. Perhaps this type of discourse has been “business as usual
for” for the NCUC; however, please be very clear that I take strong
exception to such comments, insinuations and accusations. I plan to prepare a
letter to the ICANN Board and perhaps the broader ICANN Community in light of
the important nature of these public accusations and comments regarding a
perceived lack of transparency.
Timing of Filing and Accusation of Bad
Faith
Concerns were raised regarding the timing of the filing of
the NOIF. As I explained that I planned to file the NOIF before the Brussels
meeting during my outreach webinar on May 12, 2010 and during subsequent emails
to those that were added to the email distribution list after the webinar.
There was no clandestine plan to time the filing of the NOIF with the voting
for the NCSG charter. Balancing my work obligations with my volunteer service
unfortunately pushed the filing date to this week. I would ask in the future
that you carefully consider such conclusions before voicing them in this public
forum.
There have been comments that filing the NOIF was an act of
“bad faith.” I adamantly disagree. Filing the NOIF is consistent
with the plans I have been routinely articulating to the ICANN community. I
explained concerns and thoughts about the constituency model in a series of
emails on the list serve beginning on May 7th in conjunction with
the redlined draft of the charter I submitted. Among my other comments to the
draft, I expressed my concern regarding the ICANN community’s current
lack of recognition of Interest Groups as a valid structure, entitled to equivalent
status and standing as constituencies within the GNSO. I understand that
before I was appointed, the NCUC made the decision to embrace the Interest
Group model and dissolve constituencies for the NCSG. Comparisons have been
made that Stakeholder Groups can function appropriately without constituencies,
pointing to the Registry Stakeholder Group and Registrar Stakeholder Groups. I
think comparing those SGs with the NCSG is not proper. The membership of these
two SGs contain very similarly situated members with almost identical
missions/business. On the other hand, the members of the NSCG are very diverse
and comprise individuals, and various types of organizations and groups. NCSG
members have diverse views on important topics, as demonstrated in much of the
emails exchanged about this matter.
While ICANN may eventually recognize Interest Groups, I
strongly argued during the charter drafting process and in Nairobi that it may
be prudent to continue to acknowledge the constituency structure until such
time that ICANN clearly identifies and acknowledges Interest Groups throughout
its infrastructure. I proposed that the new charter could include the
constituency structure and then later, once the status of Interest Groups was
confirmed by the ICANN community, the provision changing constituencies to
Interest Groups could be inserted as an amendment later. However, the Charter
submitted for vote did not reflect this recommendation. More importantly, I
note that the current document governing the NCSG – The Transitional
Charter – contains no provision for Interest Groups. See Section 2.0 Organization and Membership.
Since Interest Groups do not currently enjoy the same benefits and status as
constituencies, it does not make sense to consider organizing not-for-profit
organizations in an Interest Group. Thus, the filing of a NOIF for exploring
the creation of a not-for-profit consistency is not improper, does not violate
any existing NCSG provision or policy and is consistent with NCSG’s own existing
charter.
Some have commented that my actions are the result of
manipulation or influence by ICANN staff as a continuation of perceived bad
blood between Staff and the NCUC/NCSG. This is inaccurate and I am unsure of
the motivation and intended result of such charged comments. I do not support
what I perceive to be unproductive accusations about the intent of ICANN staff
and Board. I am not a pawn and I have no desire to be a pawn of any member of
the ICANN community. Saying such is deeming and in my opinion, undermines the
perception of the NCSG. Moreover, I will not participate in the unproductive
banter about an alleged strategy to thwart the efforts of the NCSG/NCUC. I
acknowledge that the appointment of the GNSO Councilors created bad feelings among
some in the NCUC. However, please be clear that my objectives: (1) representing
and increasing the voice of not-for-profit organizations ICANN policy
discussions and (2) outreach to not-for-profit organizations not already
engaged in ICANN, were not created to undermine the NCUC or NCSG. Rather, I
have hoped the NCUC and NCSG would welcome new voices at the table.
Plans for Filing and Outreach Not a
Surprise
The filing of the NOIF for a not-for-profit constituency should
not be a surprise. Since the fall of 2009 at my first meeting in Seoul, I have
taken many opportunities to speak about by my outreach plans (many of which are
outlined in the NOIF). I have clearly articulated my objectives in both my
Statement of Interest submitted when applying for the appointed GNSO position
and through many conversations with stakeholders in the ICANN community. I
have viewed my role as a volunteer with ICANN to include: (1) representing the
interests and perspective of not-for-profit organizations and increasing their
voice in ICANN policy discussions, especially with my role as a GNSO Councilor
and (2) outreach to not-for-profit organizations not already engaged in ICANN
policy discussions. For example, the status of my outreach and organizing plans
were very openly discussed during the NCSG meeting in Nairobi and with
individual NCSG Councilors and member of the NCSG Executive Committee during
the meeting.
Also, on May 6, 2010, I sent the NCUC listserve an
invitation to participate in an informational webinar for not-for-profit
organizations. In fact some NCUC members participated. During that webinar, I
provided an overview of my outreach activities and explained discussed the
timeline for moving forward for formally organizing. Therefore, I am stunned
by the accusation that I have been less than transparent about my activities.
I am also surprised by comments that I got “3 or 4…friends
in nonprofits (none of whom have any profile or activity in domain name issues)
to apply for NCSG to further some untoward result. Again, I take exception to
this comment and the implication that I have not performed outreach beyond the
colleagues I know. When embarking on my outreach plans, it was prudent for me
to begin with colleagues that I work with. However, my outreach efforts were
not limited to my “friends in nonprofits,” rather, through the
webinars and other efforts, I was able to connect with not-for-profit
organizations with whom I have not previously worked. I have actively
encouraged organizations not already involved with the NCUC or ICANN to join
the NCSG and many organizations have done so. I have worked very hard to
expand the membership of the NCSG. I have asked members of the ICANN community,
including members of the Board, stakeholders in other Constituencies and
Stakeholder Groups and those on the NCUC listserve as mentioned above, to help
me identify organizations and contacts. I am pleased to report that the
response has been very supportive and successful and many of the letters of
support of the NOIF are from new connections made since January of 2010.
As many of you know, creating a new group, especially a
group that will be comprised of international members poses many challenges.
Outreach and increasing participation is a process, not a destination. Before
filing the NOIF, I believe I have made considerable efforts to engage the ICANN
community and those not already involved in ICANN. However, these efforts are
just beginning. By filing the NOIF, the organizing group will have much needed
access to meeting and organizing resources to further its outreach efforts and
to continue the conversation.
I look forward to further discussing this matter and the
issued presented in Brussels.
Respectfully,
/Debra Hughes/
Debra Hughes
Debra Y. Hughes l Senior
Counsel
American Red Cross
Office of the General Counsel
2025 E Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 303-5356
Fax: (202) 303-0143
[log in to unmask]
From: NCSG-NCUC
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 9:34
AM
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [council] FYI - New
GNSO Constituency Notice of Intent - Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency
Alex,
I wish I could say that this isn't 'par for the course' with ICANN
staff to try to divide and conquer us. It is also unfortunate that the
proponents of this proposal don't seem to be aware that EVERY organization in
NCSG is a nonprofit organization. If Debbie could have found the time to
participate in a single NCSG policy call over the last year (or on this NCSG
mailing list), the noncommercial membership might have been given a chance to
learn about this effort and provide feedback.
ICANN staff's manipulation thrives in a communication vacuum. And
they do work closely with the commercial constituencies on how to shape the
noncommercial space.
Best,
Robin
On Jun 16, 2010, at 9:37 PM, Alex Gakuru wrote:
While have been busy healing wounds from past NCSG breakup attempts,
now another one pops up!
I do not support it, very disappointed although was not entirely
unexpected and we should brace ourselves for more such in future.
Apparently their game plan may be to keep up very busy with
"infighting" to reduce our effectiveness in icann.
Sadly,
Alex
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: