Dear Rosemary, dear colleagues, I find the Consumers Constituency mission statement below quite appropriate. I'm not clear why we need more than one Consumers Constituency in ICANN? Also, I find the members' "taxonomy" of ICANN a bit complex, but probably that way for historical reasons I need to become familiar with. Other global multi-stakeholders organizations - like the Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation for instance - often organize around the following 5 primary categories: government or public sector, business or private sector (for profit), NGOs or private sector (not for profit), Academia and Individuals. Sub-categories can then emerge as needed - so a Consumers Constituency would fit well under the "Individuals" primary category. There is always some overlap of course (a public university or a public research centre could be classified under either the public sector or academia), but I find the 5 categories above one of the most user-friendly "taxonomy" and a good working compromise. The more homogeneous a members' category the better to flush out sectoral issues of common interests. Best, Alain On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:34 AM, Rosemary Sinclair < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi all > > Here's the link Avri has set up to the docs... > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Consumer+Constituency+%28CC%29+-+candidate > > Here's the submitted version of the Mission.... > > 1.2 Mission > The intended purpose of the Consumers Constituency is to serve as the > conduit for consumer interests as they relate to the Internet and defined > within the scope of ICANN. The major areas of consumer interest are fraud, > spam, phishing, identity theft, and privacy [defined within the ICANN scope > as registration abuse, safety, and stability]; WHOIS; the Registrar > Accreditation Agreement and the behavior of registrars, registries, > resellers, domainers and other entities [defined within ICANN's scope as > "compliance"]; and new gTLDs. The focus of the Consumers Constituency will > be to ensure that consumers' safety, security, stability, usability, access, > and other appropriate concerns regarding the DNS are adequately represented > within ICANN policy development. > > Let's get feedback around the version of the Charter that reflects the > interest of the people who support the > Proposed constituency - we might be able to find a way through or at least > clarify the views > > Cheers > > Rosemary > > Rosemary Sinclair > Director | External Relations > Australian School of Business | Level 3 Building L5 | UNSW | Sydney NSW > 2052 > Direct: +61 2 9385 6228 | Fax: +61 2 9385 5933 > Email: [log in to unmask] www.asb.unsw.edu.au > > EQUIS accredited for 5 years > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > William Drake > Sent: Wednesday, 29 June 2011 4:42 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Results of the Chartering process > > Hi > > On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > I would like to point out that there is nothing wrong in us helping the > commercial actors in the Consumer area to find their way to the CSG. Just > as the CSG has leant a helping hand in the NCSG growth, I think it > appropriate that we should now try to help them as much, not only to show > our gratitude but also to allow them to experience the same benefits we have > found in diversity. > > Diabolical, I love it. Certainly, if there must be a new "consumer" space > then it should cut across both SGs. But I still have to say that after a > couple of years of this being on the table I've still not heard a really > crisp and clear definition of what it would work on substantively that isn't > already being followed, however unevenly, by existing groupings and people. > Maybe if there's a new construction with a big sign it will draw new bodies > into the ICANNsphere and increase the level of engagement on a distinctive > set of issues, but one does have to wonder... > > More generally, while I take Avri's earlier point that irrespective of what > we were discussing in the past re: focusing on interest groups, > > > Constituencies mean Nomcom committee seats and the possibility of filling > comments that the Board is willing to read because they are from a known > entity, and because any resources from ICANn will be given to constituencies > > I'm still having difficulty getting my head around the substantive > arguments for proliferation. The Academic Constituency concept is a case in > point. Unless we're talking about higher ed operational issues (which > presumably would fit in NPOC), what set of GNSO-related issues are specific > and distinct to academics and not addressed by NCUC? If, alternatively, > having distinctive issues to work on is unnecessary and we're viewing > constituencies more as sort of affinity subgroups, here too I have to wonder > about the need. Academics, including those here, have a variety of > intellectual/political orientations and areas of specialization, there's no > particular "academic perspective" that needs to represented and isn't now, > and we already work together in NCUC. As to the Avri's organizational > points, we already don't have enough time to file comments and having a > constituency might not change that, and resources have hardly flowed to our > existing constituency (whereas I couldn't help noticing Danny Younger saying > on an ALAC list that At-Large and ALAC Support Activities are budgeted at > $5,427,000.). The Nomcom committee seat case is more obvious; there was > recently a brief discussion (i.e. about three emails) concerning the > "academic" slot on the nomcom, which someone in the ALACsphere argued had to > remain set aside only for university network administration folks.I pointed > out that academia's a bit broader than that but nobody replied so voila it > stayed that way.. > > Anyway, if people decide they really want to do it I imagine I'd join an > Academic Constituency, but first wouldn't it be useful to specify the > potential benefits of launching multiple constituencies in NCSG.? > > Thanks, > > Bill > > > > > > > > On 28 Jun 2011, at 16:12, [log in to unmask] wrote: > > > >> Hi - I support the concept of a CC in both the CSG and the NCSG. Not > that it's NCSG business to push for one in the CSG, but the possibility > should clear the way for a purely NC CC to be formed within the NCSG. If one > does eventually form within the CSG, the two CCs could work together to > advance a fuller consumer agenda and awareness. For now, the CC that could > form within the NCSG will have to follow both the newly-approved > constituency formation process AND abide by the new NCSG Charter (once > formally approved by the NCSG membership). > >> > >> On a possible Academic Constituency, Rosemary and I thought it would > make sense given (1) the number of individuals that are academics and > researchers who span a number of specialty areas, from technical to law to > political science and who are already involved in NC issues; (2) the > possibility that NCSG members can join more than one constituency; (3) the > possibility that some academics and researchers may wish to be more closely > associated with an Academic Constituency than any other and so choose to > join that rather than, say, NCUC or CC; (4) the indications from the Board, > Nom Com etc. that greater academic participation at ICANN is to be welcomed; > and (5) the value that an Academic Constituency may be able to provide, in > the form of papers, public comments and so on. > >> > >> Rafik, since you were the NCSG Councilor the Board thought would be the > one to reach out to the academic community, I'd be interested (like > Rosemary) to hear your thoughts as I don't want to impose or tread on > anyone's turf either. > >> > >> Hope everyone who was in Singapore had a productive meeting and an > enjoyable visit, and are safely home without suffering too much jet lag! > >> > >> Mary > >> > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA http://www.jumo.com/ict4dk Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Vice-Chair, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org Vice Chair, Canadian Foundation for the Americas - www.focal.ca O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger