Alan, Hi.
Adam, I had meant to reply to this yesterday, but real life got in the way. And we are now at the formal deadline.
I will address solely the NCSG charter. I do not believe that we need to comment on the Constituency proposals outlines that are on the table, nor on the other SG charters.
I cannot support your position on the NCSG charter, but perhaps can propose something that is acceptable to all. First let me say why I have a problem with it. I can live with Council seats not being tied to Constituencies, and indeed in the long term, that may be mandatory, if the number of Constituencies grow and the number of seats remains static. I have already gone on records saying in the interim, it may well be a good idea to tie Council representation to Constituencies. The reason is simple. We are in a mode where we are trying to encourage new players to come to the table. This is a relatively hard sell, since there is a lot of work involved. The ONLY incentive that people have is if they have a high degree of certainty that they will actually be heard and have a chance of effecting change. The future model may have policy developed in working groups that are open to all, but it is still Council that will decide WHAT policy to look at, and what the WG charters will be.
NCUC's proposal considers this, copy of the relevant text: One approach suggested that an interim system in which each Constituency would be granted an automatic seat at the GNSO Council could be created as long as no more than six Constituencies exist within the NCSG structure. This suggestion not only fails to provide a long-term solution for the issue, it also creates artificial incentives for the formation of groups that have little concern for the wider range of the membership who the NCSG Council must serve. The outcome of an interim decision like that would encourage the election of NCSG Councilors who have little or no incentive to reach out to other views and constituencies that naturally constitute the non-commercial interest in ICANN. My view's less subtle, I also don't see "interim" as workable. Long ago there was a kind of interim arrangement where Supporting Organizations were created and took their board seats while an At Large was slowly constructed. Those that then had power changed the rules on those that didn't... first they'd take just a few of their seats, and then they'd take none. And in the GNSO there has always been the opportunity to create new constituencies, yet none has, I think in part because the entrenched structures wouldn't have made it easy. In many ways ICANN's an incredibly transparent organization, ignoring any legitimate voice will be noticed and acted on. I agree getting new people involved will be hard. But it will come through efforts to inform groups about why ICANN needs their input. ICANN needs to do the same kind of outreach it's been doing for business for the non-commercial side, particularly consumer organizations. Creating the Seoul meeting agenda so it's attractive for non-commercial organizations could be a start. I don't think we'll make much headway unless there's outreach. Anyone who needs the lure of a council seat to join the new SG isn't very likely to give that seat up for some newcomer a few months or years later. And I know promise of a council seat isn't exactly what you're saying, but hope you see my point.
With the proposed NCSG model, a newcomer, particularly a small constituency (even if they represent a very large body of users), will potentially have to convince others of the merits of their arguments. If they differ from the majority of the NCSG, there is a good probability that their voices will never reach council.
Three points: 1. A small constituency representing a large number of users will collectively also have a large number of votes (i.e. their members will be classed as large and so have a larger number of votes. I think the NCUC's vote weighting needs to be thought about a bit more, but further comment below...) 2. NCUC proposal does a good job in ensuring there's a low threshold for the formation of working groups, I think minority submissions will be heard. (And isn't convincing others of the merits of our arguments the basis of consensus policy making?) 3. I think your suggestion risks a bad person like me deciding to create a constituency, then encouraging a few like-minded people to give me support, a bit of outreach to a few more friends to bolster my numbers, all of a sudden my pet cause has a council seat.
In addition, the concept of individual users in the NCSG is very attractive on many levels. But it also leaves the SG potentially open to takeover, as a large number of individuals (and likely virtual individuals who may have no more identity than an e-mail address) could swamp the rest of the SG in votes.
The NCUC proposal isn't perfect. I'd like to see the vote weighting changed, or at least a few options looked at, with probably a greater distinction between large and small organizations and individuals. But mobilizing a few hundred individuals would not be easy (ALAC proof of that) and would also be noticed. But we also need to ensure the bottom-up process is maintained and direct participation is encouraged and not replaced by a representative model. Individuals need to want to get involved, we're looking for balance.
The two together means that some group of people who decide they want to dominate the SG have all the tools at their disposal to do this. As such, I think that this could radically decrease the attractiveness of getting new players into the game that will really support the needs of the users.
MY PROPOSAL: I would suggest that we NOT explicitly support the proposal, but reiterate what was said in the statement on user involvement in the GNSO. Specifically, that we will support any proposal that makes it VERY attractive to new GNSO NC participants and that we caution the Board to ensure that the proposals that they ratify meet this criteria.
Given lack of time I would support this position. However, we've been invited to these discussions for months, it's time we proposed solutions, say what we want rather than what we do not. Otherwise all we are doing is creating a barrier to the NCSG being created, and that is worse than picking a model and saying we'll work with it. We need to propose something. I am very concerned linking of constituencies to council seats will be a disaster (I almost know it will, it has an ICANN-style cock-up written all over it). I think the NCUC proposal is workable, and I support it noting that it needs work. Thanks, Adam (cock-up: blunder or error)
I also do not know how we formally do this in the few hours that we have left, but that is where we are.
I am sure that your position is supported by at least some ALAC members, and I also know that mine is as well. Perhaps the only alternative is to submit a dual answer showing the diversity, or several individuals say what they feel, recognizing that the ALAC is divided.
Alan
At 12/04/2009 06:09 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
My apologies, just noticed I have an action item from the March 24 ALAC call, not only had I forgotten I had it, when I read it I still didn't recognize it! follows:
"New GNSO Stakeholder Group Petition and Charters - Deadline: 15 April 2009 A Peake will try to summarize the statements made in Mexico City and see how they corrolate to the previous ones"
Again, apologies for missing this.
Give the short time to the deadline, I think it is too late for a comprehensive statement, certainly no time to draft, comment and vote.
All SG charters are online <http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/stakeholder-process-en.htm>
Two NCSG drafts have been submitted, from the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) (current GNSO constituency) and a new group, the "CyberSafety Constituency". I strongly favor the NCUC submission, particularly because it de-links the creation of constituencies from voting seats on the GNSO council. I think this essential. If constituencies are competing for seats and power then they are less likely to be effective in collaboration and representation of non-commercial interests. And we'd likely see barriers to the creation and acceptance of new constituencies (I believe we've seen this throughout ICANN's history, in the GNSO and also to some extent early creation of the At Large which was resisted by the first created supporting organizations).
NCUC proposal is not perfect, but I think an acceptable starting point and support it. Note: the organization I work for, GLOCOM, is a member of the NCUC and I represent GLOCOM in the constituency. I also supported the NCUC SG charter as a member of the Internet Governance Caucus <http://www.igcaucus.org/>)
New constituency submissions <http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm>, in addition to the CyberSafety Constituency charter, there's a Consumers Constituency (Beau) and City Top-Level-Domain (CTLD) Constituency (applicants hoping to run new gTLDs, they are potential applicants under the new gTLD round. Not completely clear to me why they wish to apply for the user house, when if they are successful in their TLD applications they will move over to the registrar Stakeholder Group.)
The application from the consumers organizations is important. The Board Governance Committee Working Group (BGC WG) recommended that in the creation of stakeholder groups:
"We want to emphasize that a new non-commercial Stakeholders Group must go far beyond the membership of the current Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC). We must consider educational, research, and philanthropic organizations, foundations, think tanks, members of academia, individual registrant groups and other noncommercial organizations, as well as individual registrants, as part of a non-commercial registrants Stakeholders Group." This has been echoed by members of the current GNSO commercial constituencies. NCUC has attempted outreach and growth with limited success -- it has no resources.
BGC WG went on to say: "We also want to point out that the effort to have a balance within ICANN between commercial and non-commercial registrants reflects only a sense of equity. We welcome ongoing efforts to forge a stronger partnership between the international business community and ICANN, and would be surprised if Council restructuring were to be viewed as an impediment. On the contrary, we believe that an improved Council will yield concrete benefits for business and other stakeholders. In addition, all stakeholder groups and the constituencies that form them will be expected to conduct greater outreach and seek to recruit a broader, more diverse membership."
ICANN has recently been actively courting the international business community, I suggest ALAC recommend ICANN should begin similar outreach to the non-commercial sector, particularly consumer organizations. For example designing the agenda of one of this year's meetings (has to be Seoul) so its has sessions oriented to the interests of consumers organizations and other NC interests, as ICANN held special sessions for business during the Paris meeting. I think this proposal would also fit with recommendations in the ALAC review and could also be a response to that process.
Thanks,
Adam
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac