Maybe it's time for the ALAC to read this exchange that resulted when I resigned from the NCUC liaison position on Friday, in part over just this sort of behavior, which has been going on since the start of the Sydney meeting. This exchange was posted to a variety of lists without my initial consent, so I am violating no one's privacy by posting it here. I note, in particular, the following quote: "You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look forward to your continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared to debunk it every time." --------------------------- From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> To: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com>, ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" <ncu-exec@ipjustice.org>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison Date: Aug 21, 2009 4:13 PM Robin...please stop. You're making a fool of yourself. -----Original Message----- From: Robin Gross Sent: Aug 21, 2009 4:11 PM To: Beau Brendler Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison Just for the record: - Beau, you have NEVER voiced these concerns to ANYONE within the EC at least (and possibly in the entire constituency) prior to this resigation. - Beau, you have NEVER made any attempt to engage NCUC on ANY discussion on your proposed Consumer Constituency (although you did insist in May-June that NCUC travel to Yonkers at great inconvenience to discuss with you, and when we agreed, you dropped contact and cancelled the meeting unexpectedly). - Beau, you have NEVER - at least for the last year attended Constituency Day at ICANN meetings OR posted ANYTHING to the listserv OR made ANY public effort to "enlighten" the so-called dominant NCUC group on ANY of the concerns you now have about our "single issue" (although you mention several "single issues" not just one so we aren't sure what our single is for you). You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look forward to your continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared to debunk it every time. Thank you, Robin On Aug 21, 2009, at 12:45 PM, Beau Brendler wrote:
Robin:
You make my points well.
Thanks,
Beau Brendler
-----Original Message----- From: Robin Gross Sent: Aug 21, 2009 3:20 PM To: Beau Brendler Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison
Beau,
Any time you would like to have substantive discussions on issues, you are welcome to participate. But the reality is, you have never once engaged with us on a substantive discussion as long as I have been involved in ICANN, despite our requests.
You are free to engage in revisionist history now if you like, but those of us who have tried to engage you in substantive discussions along the way know a different story very well.
Regards, Robin
On Aug 21, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Beau Brendler wrote:
Sure. I'm concerned with the way some vocal members of the NCUC are trying to represent themselves as being a unified voice of "civil society" (they aren't), and that "civil society" is in complete agreement with the NCUC on every point ("civil society" doesn't agree with itself on a whole range of things). There are a number of people in ALAC who feel alienated by this approach, and it's counterproductive to what's supposed to be going on -- which is policy work, not internal politics and power-grabbing. The NCUC, and ALAC, for that matter, have spent far too much time over the past year babbling about the NCSG charter when they should have been working on policy. Also, in my opinion, the NCUC is basically a one-issue constituency dominated by privacy rights and free speech voices. Those are incredibly important issues, but they are not the only ones. There are a number of members of the at-large (and the general public -- see http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/09/to-some-its-the.html) who believe, for instance, that WHOIS is a valuable tool for consumer recourse from fraud and abuse. I don't think you'd find a single member of at-large who "opposes" free speech or privacy rights, but you would find some who believe there should be a balanced or nuanced approach, especially in places like the United States, where consumers don't share the same protections they do in, say, Europe. Back a couple of years ago when I was trying to recruit consumer groups to join the ALAC (and to the NCUC, for that matter), I took the trouble to ask a couple of privacy rights organizations I knew, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and the World Privacy Forum, what they thought about the WHOIS issue. I was surprised at the nuanced response, which I circulated (with permission) to a couple of the ongoing WHOIS study groups at the time. Their outlook may have changed by now, I don't know and haven't asked. Have they joined the NCUC's one unified voice of civil society and consumers etc.? I haven't checked. And I also think that what some vocal members of the NCUC have been saying about the consumer constituency is appalling -- certainly counterproductive and a missed opportunity. Their actions have convinced me that the NCUC is interested solely -- at the moment, anyway, until various matters are decided -- in consolidating its power, not building coalitions or working within the system to improve Internet policy or ICANN policy on behalf of users. Ironically, I used to work for a consumer organization (http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/, the site, eight years' worth of work, is still up) that was very hesitant to join any sort of coalition, for these sorts of reasons. When I was an employee of that organization, I often felt I had to hold back from voicing certain opinions or aligning myself with certain groups within the ICANN community. And I took a fair amount of browbeating from at least one member of the NCUC for that, though mercifully, I don't seem to be getting those e-mails anymore. Maybe that's because I'm no longer a marquee member of "civil society," and more of an average Joe consumer.
Now, looking at the whole ICANN constituency and community enterprise as a whole, today, as a sort of free man, I can say: If I were to come in cold, and try to make up my mind, I would want no part of the NCUC.
And I don't now, because I just don't like the way a number of members of your group are doing business. And that's why I'm resigning.
Beau Brendler
-----Original Message----- From: Robin Gross Sent: Aug 21, 2009 2:19 PM To: Beau Brendler Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison
Beau,
Thanks for letting us know. Can you say why you are resigning? Thank you.
Best, Robin
On Aug 21, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Beau Brendler wrote:
Cheryl, Robin:
Please consider this my immediate resignation from the ALAC liaison position to the NCUC. I leave it to Cheryl to inform the ALAC of my decision at a particularly opportune time, as my term is up by the next ICANN meeting. However, my decision has nothing to do with timing.
Regards,
Beau Brendler
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Aug 25, 2009 6:52 AM To: ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC] Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN
A document entitled "Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN" has been distributed very widely in the last week or so. An example is http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/21/top-ten-myths-about-civil-society-part.... According to that post, the documents originates with the NCUC.
Myth 6 is about the ALAC and I believe is both inaccurate and misleading. It reads:
----------------- Myth 6
"ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society drafted charter." False. One ALAC leader said that she prefers the staff drafted charter. ICANN staff ran away with this comment and falsely told the ICANN Board of Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted charter. In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC said that many members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that "the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction." -----------------
This implies that many ALAC members supported the NCUC proposal (verbatim quote of above) and it implies that the ALAC said that the de-linking of seats was a good thing.
In fact, the statement that they were quoting (http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html) said:
"Some members feel that although there are some problems with the proposal, it generally addresses their concerns, and in particular, the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction. Problems notwithstanding, the proposal should receive Board approval."
"Some" is not "Many" and the original statement made it clear that the statement about de-linking was made by these "some members" and not the ALAC in general.
I do not know what we can do to counter this widely distributed inaccuracy, but I do not believe that we can say nothing.
Alan _______________________________________________ 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