Well said, Bill! Nuno Garcia (as member of academia and NCUC member) On 25 October 2012 10:25, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi > > On Oct 25, 2012, at 3:02 AM, Andrew A. Adams wrote: > > Universities/Academics (the current NCUC leadership could grow that > without much pain) > > > This keeps coming up. I thought it had been put to bed last time (almost > all > the academics currently in NCUC indicated it was a bad idea. > > > Indeed, it's deja vu all over again. Not clear why or what it adds rather > than subtracts, especially when NCUC member should be focusing on an > election, a decision on a charter rebuild, and much more, but here we are > anyway. > > To me, the rationale for new constituencies ought to be that they bring to > the table new players with distinctive interests that cannot be > accommodated within existing constituencies, and which have the necessary > level of member commitment to actually weigh in constructively on GNSO > policy discussions. When NPOC started out as essentially an intellectual > property-promotion group (sorry, but it was) one could at least say ok, > that's different, NCUC takes a more skeptical approach to such claims, so > there's new members, engagement, and a distinct mission. That many of us > felt that these objectives would be better placed within the CSG is a > secondary issue. Since then a lot of the IP lobbying has been redirected > from trying to build a new constituency to circumventing the GNSO process > and going directly to the board and GAC. In the meanwhile new folks have > come in and taken NPOC in a different direction which I gather is intended > to speak to the operational concerns of small developing country NGOs. > Since NCUC has long had small developing country NGOs among its membership > I've become less clear about the distinctiveness dimension, but am hopeful > that at some point NPOC will start to articulate unique GNSO policy > positions that demonstrate the utility of having two constitutencies will > similar and sometimes overlapping compositions and priorities. > > In the meanwhile we have also had a failed proposal for a consumer > constituency that never really articulated any sort of coherent reason for > being and why its view could not be accommodated within existing > structures. So when Evan says > > I think that was the PoV of the people who were trying to create the > (since abandoned) Consumer Group Constituency a few years ago. I was close > to (but not a part of) that effort, and found a resistance that, at the > time, took me by surprise. So long as diversity of power within the NCSG is > seen as a zero-sum game (ie, anything new must come at the expense of > influence of the NCUC) such resistance will exist. The wearing down of the > CGC attempt into oblivion (my PoV) has not been good sign to anyone else on > the outside seeking the diversity that Avri advocates (and with which I > personally agree). > > > I have to say this is a rather self-serving misconstruction, sorry. There > was NO convincing case made for the new group. None, zip, nada. NCUC also > addresses consumer issues. And it came at a time when there was a > presumption that launching a new constituency would automatically get one > hard wired GNSO council seats, so it looked a lot like, indeed, a zero sum > effort grab travel slots and other goodies for no particular purpose. > Maybe if the approach and presentation had been different, but from the > outset it was a bit adversarial, and hence encountered more skeptical than > y'all come reactions. But it was the CC folks who gave up, nobody in NCUC > told them to go away. > > [And parenthetically, this is the sort of thing that Avri and I just > disagree about liaisons coming into host grouping and stirring up stuff > based in their home org's biases and inadequate information…had I thought > this was my role as liaison to ALAC, boy I'd have played those four years > rather differently….there'd have been ample opportunities to stick my nose > in ALAC's biz and point out the instances of dysfunction, nondemocratic > decision making, etc. But I didn't think it was my role.] > > Now we have this proposal for a cyber cafe constituency. Since they are > mostly commercial in nature, I cannot understand why they want to be in > NCSG rather than CSG. On the other hand, CSG makes it almost impossible to > create new constitutencies. They've worked out a three way division of > spoils, including council seats, are even unable to agree a SG chair, and > are even unable to get consensus to comply with deals they made in writing > with us (the Vice Chair of the NCPH is supposed to rotate between CSG and > NCCSG, but apparently they don't want to rotate). So because another SG is > allowed to operate a closed shop, new constituency proposals default to us > whether they fit or not. > > Like Milton, I am utterly unable to get my head around the benefits of > multiplying constituencies for multiplicity's sake. Sure we could ask for > more seats on noncoms, but so what. Beyond that, all it does is divide up > the energies that should be devoted promoting share public interest values > and noncommercial concerns in the GNSO process to construction of mutually > exclusive sand boxes with apparently different levels of access to and > support from senior staff. All I've seen over the past four years (and > recall that before NPOC, there was CP80 crowd that wanted a "child > protection"/censorship constituency) is endless turf squabbles that have > absorbed people's scarce bandwidth and made if difficult if not impossible > to focus on the effective representation of our interests in GNSO > processes. We can't staff working groups, file public comments, or do any > of the other stuff needed to be serious players because we're so caught up > with managing our in-house follies. Occasionally our most hard core > stalwarts like Wendy, Mary, Avri, Robin, Kathy, Rafik and Milton manage to > break through and just get something done, and often it makes a > difference——for ex., whether members know it or not, we have actually > managed to more privacy protection and related civil liberties issues up > the agenda of late, the board has endorsed our approach. But we could be > doing much much more, without all the staff support bestowed on ALAC, if > were to spend less time re-litigating over an over how to divide up the SG > so as to give one grouping some perceived advantage of the other. > > If and when we receive strong proposals from new groups whose interests > cannot be accommodated within existing structures and who are truly > noncommercial and committed to doing serious GNSO work, that will be fine > and we can decide what to do. Until that time, I would hope we could focus > on our own knitting. Both NCUC and NPOC have a ways to go to become more > well organized, accountable, and effective bodies. Why not focus on that? > For NCUCers, the priority should be electing a new Executive Committee > whose members will significantly increase their levels of individual and > collective commitment to performing the basic tasks we need done to make it > a vibrant and growing group. EC slots cannot be nominal titles for > business cards, they have be for people really willing to work on defined, > languishing functions like member inreach, outreach, finance, > communications, web resources and so on—the nuts and bolts of any effective > civil society body. It's great we've had many people throw their hats into > the ring for EC slots, and I hope that all understand that the newly > elected EC will have to do a lot more work to get NCUC off the mat and > fully, consistently in the game. > > Bill >