Roberto, you wrote: "New constituencies will not have the right to appoint their "own" councillors, but will have the right to participate in WGs and other policy making processes and bodies, will have support from ICANN staff and resources to self-organize, will be able to participate with their own representatives in the Executive Committee of the NCSG, etc. In simple words, what we have tried to do is to create a balance and hopefully a possible way to coexist and, in time, to collaborate, for all the different components of the wide and diverse non-commercial internet community." I find the SIC's explanation and reasoning in this matter to be patronizing at worst, and deluded at best. With all due respect, the board or the SIC or whomever was responsible for proposing this scenario, has done so without responsible regard or awareness for democratic systems. The ICANN "community" as you call it is already dominated by commercial interests, all of whom somehow manage to have constituencies with votes on their behalf. To suggest that a public interest contingent of the community must do its job with board-appointed representatives and "consensus building," with the "right to form working groups," etc., is a patronizing attitude and, as it applies to a constituency model for consumer groups, a stillborn idea. I am reminded of the creation of at-large as an advisory panel with no voting power, and I am reminded of the at-large's tooth and nail fight to get a board seat (after one of ICANN's many consultants suggested it should have two, but that's better than nothing). Why do you suppose the at-large argued for board representation? Has ICANN not learned from the last two years? The board needs to reconsider this decision, and in fact the entire structure of the NCSG at this point. With the current scenario, and the lack of transparency in the decision-making process, I see no responsible course other than to ask the members of the consumer organization constituency to convene, present this situation to them, and suggest to them my opinion that they should dissolve. By the way, Danny Younger sent a letter to Diane Schroeder, which I co-signed, asking for reconsideration, as you mention. Perhaps it is time for the Structural Improvements Committee, along with the volunteers involved in forming the constituencies, interested parties from the NCUC, and other stakeholders to meet in Seoul to achieve some real, bottom-up, transparent consensus. -----Original Message-----
From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk> Sent: Oct 19, 2009 7:18 AM To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, James Seng <james@seng.sg>, alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> Cc: ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders?
Roberto,
Frankly, I am surprised by the arguments you present and tend to defend. The argument and further elaboration on "move the focus away from the vote, which is by its nature divisive, onto the consensus building process" is in fact a scorn for natural democratic tradition the western world is based on. It reminds me of a big boss or brother having patent for reasonable decisions driving a bunch of more or less incompetent people. And of course, the best big boss would be one nominated by some government obviously cumulating the wisest people in the world, or even better a strong business monopoly player. Nice and still attractive fiction, isn't it? But now seriously, such a SIC proposal just presents a persisting fear of loosing control of some people over the decision process. There is no reason for constituency without voting power. The voting power is crucial and essential point of new constituency system and any discussion casting doubt upon this should be refused from the very beginning. In my opinion, this should be explicitly spoken out and pointed out in Seoul as a clear message from At-Large to the Board. To avoid the "frivolous" creation of constituencies for the simple purpose of getting a vote" can easily be overcome by transparent rules by which new constituencies can be established. The voting power gives them necessary right and accountability towards the community they represent. The obstinate attitude of keeping control in few hands at all prices indicates persisting misunderstanding of how accountable community representing interests of millions should be driven, and as such, it becomes a main obstacle in achieving a progress in ICANN society.
I guess the name SIC is misspelled. It should write SICK.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 8:16 AM To: 'At-Large Worldwide'; 'James Seng'; alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org; 'William Drake' Cc: 'ALAC Working List' Subject: Re: [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders?
Beau,
By the way, is it true what I heard that the three newly appointed GNSO people have now been hard-wired in to two-year terms? I don't really see a constituency model working under those circumstances. Who's going to join a constituency if they have to wait two years to be able to directly elect a representative? No consumer group I am aware of is going to want to do that.
I think that we will need to clarify many things in Seoul, one of which is the reason for certain decisions of the SIC.
For instance, the SIC has decided, after long discussion, not to have an automatic link between creation of a constituency and establishment of a seat in the Council. The reasons against this position include what you correctly point out, i.e. that it will be more difficult to get people's interest if there's no immediate representation in terms of voting rights. However, there are also reasons for taking this approach. One of these is that we have to avoid the "frivolous" creation of constituencies for the simple purpose of getting a vote. A bit like create empty shells as registrars to have a higher firing power for getting valuable names. Another observation is that in the "old" council it was exactly the fact that the creation of a new constituency would have altered the voting balance that de facto prevented the creation of any new constituency in 10 years.
But the main point for the SIC to maintain the concept of constituency, against the open opposition of NCUC, but to keep it without an automatic voting power, against the obvious concerns of who wants to build new constituencies, is the leit-motiv that has guided the whole process of the review: move the focus away from the vote, which is by its nature divisive, onto the consensus building process. New constituencies will not have the right to appoint their "own" councillors, but will have the right to participate in WGs and other policy making processes and bodies, will have support from ICANN staff and resources to self-organize, will be able to participate with their own representatives in the Executive Committee of the NCSG, etc. In simple words, what we have tried to do is to create a balance and hopefully a possible way to coexist and, in time, to collaborate, for all the different components of the wide and diverse non-commercial internet community. Somebody on this list has spoken about "reconsideration" of the Board's decision. This is surely possible. But what I would propose is to try to discuss and understand if what the SIC has proposed can work in practice, although it is not going to be perfect for anybody, before shooting it down and start all over again. This discussion is for me one of the main priorities, if not the first priority altogether, in Seoul, which as you all know will mark the end of my term as Director.
The ALAC and the NCUC are two big parts of this picture, the only organized bodies in ICANN so far (for non-commercial users), I personally think that the first step can be to have a joint discussion in Seoul. Bill's proposal of meeting in an event that is not only work, but also social, goes in this sense, methinks.
Cheers, Roberto
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i cann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org