Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
Beau, as I understand it, the Board will accept or reject presumably based on the their own perspective and the input received from the public comments. The only opportunity for change is if the Board rejects. If they accept, it is (until a change is required or forced) cast in concrete. Alan At 15/04/2009 07:26 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
I feel like I have something of a conflict of interest, since I have a constituency proposal before the community for consumers. I can go as far as to say I have some concerns with both charters that I hope will be ironed out during the public comment and review process.
________________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 7:11 PM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
Cheryl asked me to try to draft something that illustrates the divided nature of the ALAC on this issue, and for those opposed to the charter, to try to explain in as simple a way as possible what the issues are.
Any comment that is formally submitted must be done so within about 8 hours of my sending this message, so we do not have much time left. The only ALAC members who have spoken on the subject to date (in this thread) are Adam, me and Cheryl. Others have participated earlier, and I have tried to capture their thoughts and feelings as well.
Hopefully Cheryl and Adam will say whether I have captured their views properly. If not, adjustments will be made. Other comments are welcome as well. But we do not have much time.
I do not believe that we can be completely silent on this issue. We need to say something.
Alan
================================= Comment on the NCSG proposals
The following comment has the support of a number of ALAC members including the Chair, but has not yet been subjected to a formal ALAC vote. That will happen during our next teleconference on April 28.
The ALAC is divided on the support of the proposal submitted by Robin Gross of the NCUC.
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.
Others feel that the issues still outstanding are sufficient to withhold Board support at this time. These issues include:
· The issue of Council seats cannot be ignored. Although policy will likely be architected by Working Groups with open participation, it will be Council that decides what policies to address and what the WG charters will include. Without a voice on Council, a Constituency may not be able to effectively participate in the discussions leading to these decisions. And without an effective voice, there will be little incentive to bring new, non-commercial players into the gTLD policy arena one of the main reasons for the current reorganization and for the significant growth in the NCSG weighting compared to the NCUC in the current model.
· Although the inclusion of individuals is satisfying on a number of levels, the proposed voting structure makes the NCSG very vulnerable to take-over, particularly with the lack of a fee structure being specified, and the lack of rules or proposed process which could even verify that all individual members are in fact identifiable people acting on their own accord. This could, over a period straddling two annual meeting, allow takeover of all council seats, reinforcing the first bullet above.
· There is little evidence that those submitting this charter accept these potential problems and have identified a way to resolve them through some sort of amendments once Board approval is given.
· It now looks like there may be one or more actual new non-commercial Constituencies that could receive Board approval. It would be far more satisfying to defer the long-term charter of the NCSG until these Constituencies could be present at the table and speak on their own behalf. Until such time, an interim model linking seats to Constituencies could be used. Clearly that model would need to be replaced prior to the existence of more than six constituencies.
In summary, the ALAC is not of a single mind. Some people feel very strongly that the inadequacies of the proposed charter are sufficient reason to not accept it .Others feel that although there are some problems, it has sufficient merit to receive approval with the belief that any problems will be addressed as time goes on.
The charter proposed by Cheryl Preston does not have the exact same failings as the NCUC version, but for a number of reasons has not received any strong support within the ALAC and for this reason we cannot advocate approval.
_______________________________________________ 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
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
I guess the time is passed now, but, to be frank, I also have a political problem. My organization would be concerned about aligning itself with CP80. Meanwhile, "civil society" is being organized to make public comments in favor of the NCUC charter, which I find problematic because of its voting system, because I don't think it offers much to newcomers, and because it's not clear how well minority viewpoints would be represented. If there's no "hammering out" phase, then I guess I'm either left to wait and see, or to withdraw the consumer constituency petition (or withdraw from the constituency and let Holly carry it on). ________________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:16 PM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s) Beau, as I understand it, the Board will accept or reject presumably based on the their own perspective and the input received from the public comments. The only opportunity for change is if the Board rejects. If they accept, it is (until a change is required or forced) cast in concrete. Alan At 15/04/2009 07:26 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
I feel like I have something of a conflict of interest, since I have a constituency proposal before the community for consumers. I can go as far as to say I have some concerns with both charters that I hope will be ironed out during the public comment and review process.
________________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 7:11 PM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
Cheryl asked me to try to draft something that illustrates the divided nature of the ALAC on this issue, and for those opposed to the charter, to try to explain in as simple a way as possible what the issues are.
Any comment that is formally submitted must be done so within about 8 hours of my sending this message, so we do not have much time left. The only ALAC members who have spoken on the subject to date (in this thread) are Adam, me and Cheryl. Others have participated earlier, and I have tried to capture their thoughts and feelings as well.
Hopefully Cheryl and Adam will say whether I have captured their views properly. If not, adjustments will be made. Other comments are welcome as well. But we do not have much time.
I do not believe that we can be completely silent on this issue. We need to say something.
Alan
================================= Comment on the NCSG proposals
The following comment has the support of a number of ALAC members including the Chair, but has not yet been subjected to a formal ALAC vote. That will happen during our next teleconference on April 28.
The ALAC is divided on the support of the proposal submitted by Robin Gross of the NCUC.
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.
Others feel that the issues still outstanding are sufficient to withhold Board support at this time. These issues include:
· The issue of Council seats cannot be ignored. Although policy will likely be architected by Working Groups with open participation, it will be Council that decides what policies to address and what the WG charters will include. Without a voice on Council, a Constituency may not be able to effectively participate in the discussions leading to these decisions. And without an effective voice, there will be little incentive to bring new, non-commercial players into the gTLD policy arena one of the main reasons for the current reorganization and for the significant growth in the NCSG weighting compared to the NCUC in the current model.
· Although the inclusion of individuals is satisfying on a number of levels, the proposed voting structure makes the NCSG very vulnerable to take-over, particularly with the lack of a fee structure being specified, and the lack of rules or proposed process which could even verify that all individual members are in fact identifiable people acting on their own accord. This could, over a period straddling two annual meeting, allow takeover of all council seats, reinforcing the first bullet above.
· There is little evidence that those submitting this charter accept these potential problems and have identified a way to resolve them through some sort of amendments once Board approval is given.
· It now looks like there may be one or more actual new non-commercial Constituencies that could receive Board approval. It would be far more satisfying to defer the long-term charter of the NCSG until these Constituencies could be present at the table and speak on their own behalf. Until such time, an interim model linking seats to Constituencies could be used. Clearly that model would need to be replaced prior to the existence of more than six constituencies.
In summary, the ALAC is not of a single mind. Some people feel very strongly that the inadequacies of the proposed charter are sufficient reason to not accept it .Others feel that although there are some problems, it has sufficient merit to receive approval with the belief that any problems will be addressed as time goes on.
The charter proposed by Cheryl Preston does not have the exact same failings as the NCUC version, but for a number of reasons has not received any strong support within the ALAC and for this reason we cannot advocate approval.
_______________________________________________ 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
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
_______________________________________________ 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 *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
Alan: thanks for sending a comment <http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00025.html>. I think it's fair, appreciate your efforts on all our behalf. There's a lot to respond to in quite a few messages, busy day today and tomorrow likely worse, sorry I haven't time. So just this:
Beau, as I understand it, the Board will accept or reject presumably based on the their own perspective and the input received from the public comments. The only opportunity for change is if the Board rejects. If they accept, it is (until a change is required or forced) cast in concrete.
I suspect you are right, but this is something to check. If I am reading the commercial stakeholder's charter correctly <http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/commercial-sg-transitional-charter-28f...> (btw: no mention of individuals, and we know some of the constituencies give individuals no rights other than to observe), then it is not complete, the last item there states "The Final Charter Process The process to develop a Final Charter shall consider a number of additional matters." What's going on here? Doesn't this indicate there's an opportunity to do more work? Two things: if the process is open to further comment --I hope it is-- then seeking to make modifications to the non-commercial proposals would be a good option. I suggest we only address the NCUC proposal, the other has little support. If the process is closed as you suggest, as ALAC can provide advice to the board as it wishes, can't we anyway suggest whatever we think best? In both situations we can say there should be a further review process and specify areas of the NCUC proposal that need to be resolved. If we can take this route of extra comment, then let's be specific with our questions to the NCUC (example: verification of individuals, potential for capture by individuals... I know there's much more, but this is pretty specific and addressable.) Let's go through the NCUC proposal and say where each of us have problems and then we can either seek the facilitated discussion that was promised. Or perhaps better, a few of us start a discussion with Mary Wong, Bill Drake, Robin Gross etc and work through things ourselves. And ICANN has to begin supporting the outreach. It's unrealistic to think the NCUC alone could find members from "educational, research, and philanthropic organizations, foundations, think tanks, members of academia, individual registrant groups and other noncommercial organizations etc". It's managed a few, but some of these are groups ICANN itself has had great difficulty engaging with. I know some NCUC members have tried, I've done a bit myself with no luck. Outreach of this kind needs ICANN's support. Thanks, Adam
Alan
At 15/04/2009 07:26 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
I feel like I have something of a conflict of interest, since I have a constituency proposal before the community for consumers. I can go as far as to say I have some concerns with both charters that I hope will be ironed out during the public comment and review process.
________________________________________
I think Adam is on-target here: "Let's go through the NCUC proposal and say where each of us have problems and then we can either seek the facilitated discussion that was promised. Or perhaps better, a few of us start a discussion with Mary Wong, Bill Drake, Robin Gross etc and work through things ourselves." I have spoken separately to Robin and Brendan and others and they know their charter's not perfect, but I think they are genuinely looking for help in improving it. I am of course willing to help out with going through it and making suggestions. Per Adam's comment to staff, I know that Heidi and Nick have been trying to do outreach to consumer groups, at least on behalf of the consumer constituency if not one of the charters...which is much appreciated. ________________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake [ajp@glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:16 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s) Alan: thanks for sending a comment <http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00025.html>. I think it's fair, appreciate your efforts on all our behalf. There's a lot to respond to in quite a few messages, busy day today and tomorrow likely worse, sorry I haven't time. So just this:
Beau, as I understand it, the Board will accept or reject presumably based on the their own perspective and the input received from the public comments. The only opportunity for change is if the Board rejects. If they accept, it is (until a change is required or forced) cast in concrete.
I suspect you are right, but this is something to check. If I am reading the commercial stakeholder's charter correctly <http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/commercial-sg-transitional-charter-28f...> (btw: no mention of individuals, and we know some of the constituencies give individuals no rights other than to observe), then it is not complete, the last item there states "The Final Charter Process The process to develop a Final Charter shall consider a number of additional matters." What's going on here? Doesn't this indicate there's an opportunity to do more work? Two things: if the process is open to further comment --I hope it is-- then seeking to make modifications to the non-commercial proposals would be a good option. I suggest we only address the NCUC proposal, the other has little support. If the process is closed as you suggest, as ALAC can provide advice to the board as it wishes, can't we anyway suggest whatever we think best? In both situations we can say there should be a further review process and specify areas of the NCUC proposal that need to be resolved. If we can take this route of extra comment, then let's be specific with our questions to the NCUC (example: verification of individuals, potential for capture by individuals... I know there's much more, but this is pretty specific and addressable.) Let's go through the NCUC proposal and say where each of us have problems and then we can either seek the facilitated discussion that was promised. Or perhaps better, a few of us start a discussion with Mary Wong, Bill Drake, Robin Gross etc and work through things ourselves. And ICANN has to begin supporting the outreach. It's unrealistic to think the NCUC alone could find members from "educational, research, and philanthropic organizations, foundations, think tanks, members of academia, individual registrant groups and other noncommercial organizations etc". It's managed a few, but some of these are groups ICANN itself has had great difficulty engaging with. I know some NCUC members have tried, I've done a bit myself with no luck. Outreach of this kind needs ICANN's support. Thanks, Adam
Alan
At 15/04/2009 07:26 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
I feel like I have something of a conflict of interest, since I have a constituency proposal before the community for consumers. I can go as far as to say I have some concerns with both charters that I hope will be ironed out during the public comment and review process.
________________________________________
_______________________________________________ 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 *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
I,m concern about the NCUC proposal because is very complicated to understand, and this means the continuity of the old participants. On the other side I agree with Patrick in his comments and I want to add my serious concern about our political capacity in the emergency. I think NCUC made their bussines, and we only saw the train pass thru. I assume my fault part of this, but we have an actively, and -de facto- ExCom which they should have seen this before. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org
From: Brenbe@consumer.org To: ajp@glocom.ac.jp; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:21:36 -0400 CC: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
I think Adam is on-target here:
"Let's go through the NCUC proposal and say where each of us have problems and then we can either seek the facilitated discussion that was promised. Or perhaps better, a few of us start a discussion with Mary Wong, Bill Drake, Robin Gross etc and work through things ourselves."
I have spoken separately to Robin and Brendan and others and they know their charter's not perfect, but I think they are genuinely looking for help in improving it. I am of course willing to help out with going through it and making suggestions.
Per Adam's comment to staff, I know that Heidi and Nick have been trying to do outreach to consumer groups, at least on behalf of the consumer constituency if not one of the charters...which is much appreciated. ________________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake [ajp@glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:16 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
Alan: thanks for sending a comment <http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00025.html>. I think it's fair, appreciate your efforts on all our behalf.
There's a lot to respond to in quite a few messages, busy day today and tomorrow likely worse, sorry I haven't time. So just this:
Beau, as I understand it, the Board will accept or reject presumably based on the their own perspective and the input received from the public comments. The only opportunity for change is if the Board rejects. If they accept, it is (until a change is required or forced) cast in concrete.
I suspect you are right, but this is something to check.
If I am reading the commercial stakeholder's charter correctly <http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/commercial-sg-transitional-charter-28f...> (btw: no mention of individuals, and we know some of the constituencies give individuals no rights other than to observe), then it is not complete, the last item there states "The Final Charter Process The process to develop a Final Charter shall consider a number of additional matters." What's going on here? Doesn't this indicate there's an opportunity to do more work?
Two things: if the process is open to further comment --I hope it is-- then seeking to make modifications to the non-commercial proposals would be a good option. I suggest we only address the NCUC proposal, the other has little support. If the process is closed as you suggest, as ALAC can provide advice to the board as it wishes, can't we anyway suggest whatever we think best? In both situations we can say there should be a further review process and specify areas of the NCUC proposal that need to be resolved.
If we can take this route of extra comment, then let's be specific with our questions to the NCUC (example: verification of individuals, potential for capture by individuals... I know there's much more, but this is pretty specific and addressable.) Let's go through the NCUC proposal and say where each of us have problems and then we can either seek the facilitated discussion that was promised. Or perhaps better, a few of us start a discussion with Mary Wong, Bill Drake, Robin Gross etc and work through things ourselves.
And ICANN has to begin supporting the outreach. It's unrealistic to think the NCUC alone could find members from "educational, research, and philanthropic organizations, foundations, think tanks, members of academia, individual registrant groups and other noncommercial organizations etc". It's managed a few, but some of these are groups ICANN itself has had great difficulty engaging with. I know some NCUC members have tried, I've done a bit myself with no luck. Outreach of this kind needs ICANN's support.
Thanks,
Adam
Alan
At 15/04/2009 07:26 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
I feel like I have something of a conflict of interest, since I have a constituency proposal before the community for consumers. I can go as far as to say I have some concerns with both charters that I hope will be ironed out during the public comment and review process.
________________________________________
_______________________________________________ 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
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
_______________________________________________ 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
_________________________________________________________________ ¿Querés saber cómo va a estar el clima mañana? Ingresá ahora a MSN http://tiempo.ar.msn.com/
Carlos wrote: "I'm concern about the NCUC proposal because is very complicated to understand, and this means the continuity of the old participants." My sentiments exactly. Trying to explain that charter to consumer groups, for me, is a non-starter. ________________________________________ From: carlos aguirre [carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:25 AM To: Brendler, Beau; Adam Peake; alan greenberg Cc: lista publica de ALAC Subject: RE: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s) I,m concern about the NCUC proposal because is very complicated to understand, and this means the continuity of the old participants. On the other side I agree with Patrick in his comments and I want to add my serious concern about our political capacity in the emergency. I think NCUC made their bussines, and we only saw the train pass thru. I assume my fault part of this, but we have an actively, and -de facto- ExCom which they should have seen this before. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar<http://www.sitioderecho.com.ar/> http://ar.ageiadensi.org<http://www.densi.com.ar/>
From: Brenbe@consumer.org To: ajp@glocom.ac.jp; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:21:36 -0400 CC: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
I think Adam is on-target here:
"Let's go through the NCUC proposal and say where each of us have problems and then we can either seek the facilitated discussion that was promised. Or perhaps better, a few of us start a discussion with Mary Wong, Bill Drake, Robin Gross etc and work through things ourselves."
I have spoken separately to Robin and Brendan and others and they know their charter's not perfect, but I think they are genuinely looking for help in improving it. I am of course willing to help out with going through it and making suggestions.
Per Adam's comment to staff, I know that Heidi and Nick have been trying to do outreach to consumer groups, at least on behalf of the consumer constituency if not one of the charters...which is much appreciated. ________________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake [ajp@glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:16 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
Alan: thanks for sending a comment <http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00025.html>. I think it's fair, appreciate your efforts on all our behalf.
There's a lot to respond to in quite a few messages, busy day today and tomorrow likely worse, sorry I haven't time. So just this:
Beau, as I understand it, the Board will accept or reject presumably based on the their own perspective and the input received from the public comments. The only opportunity for change is if the Board rejects. If they accept, it is (until a change is required or forced) cast in concrete.
I suspect you are right, but this is something to check.
If I am reading the commercial stakeholder's charter correctly <http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/commercial-sg-transitional-charter-28f...> (btw: no mention of individuals, and we know some of the constituencies give individuals no rights other than to observe), then it is not complete, the last item there states "The Final Charter Process The process to develop a Final Charter shall consider a number of additional matters." What's going on here? Doesn't this indicate there's an opportunity to do more work?
Two things: if the process is open to further comment --I hope it is-- then seeking to make modifications to the non-commercial proposals would be a good option. I suggest we only address the NCUC proposal, the other has little support. If the process is closed as you suggest, as ALAC can provide advice to the board as it wishes, can't we anyway suggest whatever we think best? In both situations we can say there should be a further review process and specify areas of the NCUC proposal that need to be resolved.
If we can take this route of extra comment, then let's be specific with our questions to the NCUC (example: verification of individuals, potential for capture by individuals... I know there's much more, but this is pretty specific and addressable.) Let's go through the NCUC proposal and say where each of us have problems and then we can either seek the facilitated discussion that was promised. Or perhaps better, a few of us start a discussion with Mary Wong, Bill Drake, Robin Gross etc and work through things ourselves.
And ICANN has to begin supporting the outreach. It's unrealistic to think the NCUC alone could find members from "educational, research, and philanthropic organizations, foundations, think tanks, members of academia, individual registrant groups and other noncommercial organizations etc". It's managed a few, but some of these are groups ICANN itself has had great difficulty engaging with. I know some NCUC members have tried, I've done a bit myself with no luck. Outreach of this kind needs ICANN's support.
Thanks,
Adam
Alan
At 15/04/2009 07:26 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
I feel like I have something of a conflict of interest, since I have a constituency proposal before the community for consumers. I can go as far as to say I have some concerns with both charters that I hope will be ironed out during the public comment and review process.
________________________________________
_______________________________________________ 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
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
_______________________________________________ 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
________________________________ Con Messenger podés ver si llegaron correos nuevos ¡Conocé todo lo nuevo del Messenger 2009!<http://www.nuevomessenger2009.com/> *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
Hello On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
Carlos wrote:
"I'm concern about the NCUC proposal because is very complicated to understand, and this means the continuity of the old participants."
My sentiments exactly. Trying to explain that charter to consumer groups, for me, is a non-starter.
Hello Even within the ICT space, ICANN is not so well known by everyone. On the task of outreach, one has to first explain what ICANN is, what it manages, then about the various constituencies and then about Public Participation and User's representation in ICANN. When all this already so complicated, the outreach effort has to explain the technical distinctions between two different User constituencies and this would add to all the confusion. As Adam points out outreach efforts require the support of ICANN and now this support also needs to be split between two different outreach efforts. We will have the at-Large outreach and then the NCSG outreach. Wolf talks about being silent as a way of expressing some of disagreements, but in an ecosystem of written records by way of documentation and public comments, 'silence' can't be read, except by an insightful inner circle, who themselves may not be able to act on the unspoken views. What probably deters us is the resignation that ALAC's comments and objections at this stage might not have an effect on the NCSG proposal which is half way into the process. I think we should go ahead and make our observations without worrying about the timing and impact of our comments. It is necessary to say the right thing rather than be withdrawn about the developments underway. The Civil Society endorsements that I see are not representative. There are CS groups endorsing the NCSG proposal but it is to be examined if these orchestrated endorsements reflect a universally balanced user's viewpoint. Nevertheless it goes on record and the record so created apparently looks good - so many signatures, so many endorsements from different corners ! It is exactly for this reason that ALAC needs to speak up. There has been tremendous activity in the at-Large community particularly during the last 6 or 9 months, and ICANN might rather project the recent developments to get an idea of the potential for the at-Large community to emerge as a wider, truly representative voice and focus on its support to making the at-Large community evolve, fine-tune and grow further. There appear to be greater dangers of a subtle form of capture in the way NCSG proposal is taking shape. This is a broader consideration that needs to be debated further. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India.
Please be careful about thinking endorsements have been orchestrated. It's not been the case, at least not in the negative sense of that word. There was long discussion about the proposal on the WSIS civil society Internet Governance Caucus list <http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance>. It was agreed the caucus would endorse the proposal and individual sign-up by organizations was also invited. I can see a lot of names I recognize and expect came from there, and also a few members of the OECD's Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council (CSISAC) where some of the NCUC's executive committee also active. As there are now two comments on the charter petition page claiming the NCUC proposal fails in terms of diversity and representativeness, I think important to make clear there were efforts to have the proposal discussed and supported. I think the NCUC's sign-up efforts were quite genuine. Thanks, Adam
Hello
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Brendler, Beau <<mailto:Brenbe@consumer.org>Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
Carlos wrote:
"I'm concern about the NCUC proposal because is very complicated to understand, and this means the continuity of the old participants."
My sentiments exactly. Trying to explain that charter to consumer groups, for me, is a non-starter.
Hello
Even within the ICT space, ICANN is not so well known by everyone. On the task of outreach, one has to first explain what ICANN is, what it manages, then about the various constituencies and then about Public Participation and User's representation in ICANN. When all this already so complicated, the outreach effort has to explain the technical distinctions between two different User constituencies and this would add to all the confusion.
As Adam points out outreach efforts require the support of ICANN and now this support also needs to be split between two different outreach efforts. We will have the at-Large outreach and then the NCSG outreach.
Wolf talks about being silent as a way of expressing some of disagreements, but in an ecosystem of written records by way of documentation and public comments, 'silence' can't be read, except by an insightful inner circle, who themselves may not be able to act on the unspoken views.
What probably deters us is the resignation that ALAC's comments and objections at this stage might not have an effect on the NCSG proposal which is half way into the process. I think we should go ahead and make our observations without worrying about the timing and impact of our comments. It is necessary to say the right thing rather than be withdrawn about the developments underway.
The Civil Society endorsements that I see are not representative. There are CS groups endorsing the NCSG proposal but it is to be examined if these orchestrated endorsements reflect a universally balanced user's viewpoint. Nevertheless it goes on record and the record so created apparently looks good - so many signatures, so many endorsements from different corners !
It is exactly for this reason that ALAC needs to speak up. There has been tremendous activity in the at-Large community particularly during the last 6 or 9 months, and ICANN might rather project the recent developments to get an idea of the potential for the at-Large community to emerge as a wider, truly representative voice and focus on its support to making the at-Large community evolve, fine-tune and grow further.
There appear to be greater dangers of a subtle form of capture in the way NCSG proposal is taking shape. This is a broader consideration that needs to be debated further.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India.
Well, so far I've had two form letters sent to me by e-mail. They've been sent to other members of my organization as well. I've also had two personal e-mails sent to me. And I've got copies of the same letters through two listservs. I (and my organization) have also been urged twice to publicly express my support for the NCUC's version of the charter. I'm all for grassroots, but I think there are issues, I have said before, with both charters. ________________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake [ajp@glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:02 PM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s) Please be careful about thinking endorsements have been orchestrated. It's not been the case, at least not in the negative sense of that word. There was long discussion about the proposal on the WSIS civil society Internet Governance Caucus list <http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance>. It was agreed the caucus would endorse the proposal and individual sign-up by organizations was also invited. I can see a lot of names I recognize and expect came from there, and also a few members of the OECD's Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council (CSISAC) where some of the NCUC's executive committee also active. As there are now two comments on the charter petition page claiming the NCUC proposal fails in terms of diversity and representativeness, I think important to make clear there were efforts to have the proposal discussed and supported. I think the NCUC's sign-up efforts were quite genuine. Thanks, Adam
Hello
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Brendler, Beau <<mailto:Brenbe@consumer.org>Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
Carlos wrote:
"I'm concern about the NCUC proposal because is very complicated to understand, and this means the continuity of the old participants."
My sentiments exactly. Trying to explain that charter to consumer groups, for me, is a non-starter.
Hello
Even within the ICT space, ICANN is not so well known by everyone. On the task of outreach, one has to first explain what ICANN is, what it manages, then about the various constituencies and then about Public Participation and User's representation in ICANN. When all this already so complicated, the outreach effort has to explain the technical distinctions between two different User constituencies and this would add to all the confusion.
As Adam points out outreach efforts require the support of ICANN and now this support also needs to be split between two different outreach efforts. We will have the at-Large outreach and then the NCSG outreach.
Wolf talks about being silent as a way of expressing some of disagreements, but in an ecosystem of written records by way of documentation and public comments, 'silence' can't be read, except by an insightful inner circle, who themselves may not be able to act on the unspoken views.
What probably deters us is the resignation that ALAC's comments and objections at this stage might not have an effect on the NCSG proposal which is half way into the process. I think we should go ahead and make our observations without worrying about the timing and impact of our comments. It is necessary to say the right thing rather than be withdrawn about the developments underway.
The Civil Society endorsements that I see are not representative. There are CS groups endorsing the NCSG proposal but it is to be examined if these orchestrated endorsements reflect a universally balanced user's viewpoint. Nevertheless it goes on record and the record so created apparently looks good - so many signatures, so many endorsements from different corners !
It is exactly for this reason that ALAC needs to speak up. There has been tremendous activity in the at-Large community particularly during the last 6 or 9 months, and ICANN might rather project the recent developments to get an idea of the potential for the at-Large community to emerge as a wider, truly representative voice and focus on its support to making the at-Large community evolve, fine-tune and grow further.
There appear to be greater dangers of a subtle form of capture in the way NCSG proposal is taking shape. This is a broader consideration that needs to be debated further.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India.
_______________________________________________ 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 *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
I,m concern about the NCUC proposal because is very complicated to understand, and this means the continuity of the old participants. On the other side I agree with Patrick in his comments and I want to add my serious concern about our political capacity in the emergency. I think NCUC made their bussines, and we only saw the train pass thru. I assume my fault part of this, but we have an actively, and -de facto- ExCom which they should have seen this before. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org
From: Brenbe@consumer.org To: ajp@glocom.ac.jp; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:21:36 -0400 CC: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
I think Adam is on-target here:
"Let's go through the NCUC proposal and say where each of us have problems and then we can either seek the facilitated discussion that was promised. Or perhaps better, a few of us start a discussion with Mary Wong, Bill Drake, Robin Gross etc and work through things ourselves."
I have spoken separately to Robin and Brendan and others and they know their charter's not perfect, but I think they are genuinely looking for help in improving it. I am of course willing to help out with going through it and making suggestions.
Per Adam's comment to staff, I know that Heidi and Nick have been trying to do outreach to consumer groups, at least on behalf of the consumer constituency if not one of the charters...which is much appreciated. ________________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake [ajp@glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:16 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
Alan: thanks for sending a comment <http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00025.html>. I think it's fair, appreciate your efforts on all our behalf.
There's a lot to respond to in quite a few messages, busy day today and tomorrow likely worse, sorry I haven't time. So just this:
Beau, as I understand it, the Board will accept or reject presumably based on the their own perspective and the input received from the public comments. The only opportunity for change is if the Board rejects. If they accept, it is (until a change is required or forced) cast in concrete.
I suspect you are right, but this is something to check.
If I am reading the commercial stakeholder's charter correctly <http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/commercial-sg-transitional-charter-28f...> (btw: no mention of individuals, and we know some of the constituencies give individuals no rights other than to observe), then it is not complete, the last item there states "The Final Charter Process The process to develop a Final Charter shall consider a number of additional matters." What's going on here? Doesn't this indicate there's an opportunity to do more work?
Two things: if the process is open to further comment --I hope it is-- then seeking to make modifications to the non-commercial proposals would be a good option. I suggest we only address the NCUC proposal, the other has little support. If the process is closed as you suggest, as ALAC can provide advice to the board as it wishes, can't we anyway suggest whatever we think best? In both situations we can say there should be a further review process and specify areas of the NCUC proposal that need to be resolved.
If we can take this route of extra comment, then let's be specific with our questions to the NCUC (example: verification of individuals, potential for capture by individuals... I know there's much more, but this is pretty specific and addressable.) Let's go through the NCUC proposal and say where each of us have problems and then we can either seek the facilitated discussion that was promised. Or perhaps better, a few of us start a discussion with Mary Wong, Bill Drake, Robin Gross etc and work through things ourselves.
And ICANN has to begin supporting the outreach. It's unrealistic to think the NCUC alone could find members from "educational, research, and philanthropic organizations, foundations, think tanks, members of academia, individual registrant groups and other noncommercial organizations etc". It's managed a few, but some of these are groups ICANN itself has had great difficulty engaging with. I know some NCUC members have tried, I've done a bit myself with no luck. Outreach of this kind needs ICANN's support.
Thanks,
Adam
Alan
At 15/04/2009 07:26 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
I feel like I have something of a conflict of interest, since I have a constituency proposal before the community for consumers. I can go as far as to say I have some concerns with both charters that I hope will be ironed out during the public comment and review process.
________________________________________
_______________________________________________ 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
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
_______________________________________________ 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
Con Messenger podés ver si llegaron correos nuevos ¡Conocé todo lo nuevo del Messenger 2009! _________________________________________________________________ Mantenete actualizado con MSN Noticias. Clic aquí http://noticias.ar.msn.com/
Hi Beau and Adam, Brendler, Beau wrote Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:21: (...)
Per Adam's comment to staff, I know that Heidi and Nick have been trying to do outreach to consumer >groups, at least on behalf of the consumer constituency if not one of the charters...which is much >appreciated.
I think, outreach and getting more user groups like consumers involved is essential in this matter. And therefore I strongly support Heidi's and Nick's initiatives in this direction! Best, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allemd http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe
Evan's comments re the assumptions that are driving the GNSO restructuring deserves serious consideration and debate in At-Large, some of which has started with the Summit WG statements. There is no question that there is an imbalance of interests in ICANN and I suspect that it will continue into the foreseeable future. To my mind - and I've commented on this often enough - the state of play is as a result of the confluence of ICANN's funding model, the USG's paternal interests via the JPA and the internal political economy and socialisation of ICANN as a corporate entity born and raised in the United States. Make no mistake, I have always been wide-eyed clear that the At-large serves a vital political interest to ICANN but we now play at the edge, period. In so far as I am concerned, the NCSG draft charter telegraphs 2 things: 1) it explicitly recognizes the power imbalance regarding ICAN policy-making 2) It attempts to attract hitherto "unchurched" interests to the policy-making process as a means to address this. IMHO, it is better to have as many ways to come to Jesus than not. So while I recognize that the charter may not be perfect, I have decided that the "perfect" cannot be the enemy of the "good". So "good enough" gets the nod and my personal support. And we live to fight another day. Carlton Samuels On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
I think Adam is on-target here:
"Let's go through the NCUC proposal and say where each of us have problems and then we can either seek the facilitated discussion that was promised. Or perhaps better, a few of us start a discussion with Mary Wong, Bill Drake, Robin Gross etc and work through things ourselves."
I have spoken separately to Robin and Brendan and others and they know their charter's not perfect, but I think they are genuinely looking for help in improving it. I am of course willing to help out with going through it and making suggestions.
Per Adam's comment to staff, I know that Heidi and Nick have been trying to do outreach to consumer groups, at least on behalf of the consumer constituency if not one of the charters...which is much appreciated. ________________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [ alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake [ ajp@glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:16 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
Alan: thanks for sending a comment <http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00025.html>. I think it's fair, appreciate your efforts on all our behalf.
There's a lot to respond to in quite a few messages, busy day today and tomorrow likely worse, sorry I haven't time. So just this:
Beau, as I understand it, the Board will accept or reject presumably based on the their own perspective and the input received from the public comments. The only opportunity for change is if the Board rejects. If they accept, it is (until a change is required or forced) cast in concrete.
I suspect you are right, but this is something to check.
If I am reading the commercial stakeholder's charter correctly < http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/commercial-sg-transitional-charter-28f...
(btw: no mention of individuals, and we know some of the constituencies give individuals no rights other than to observe), then it is not complete, the last item there states "The Final Charter Process The process to develop a Final Charter shall consider a number of additional matters." What's going on here? Doesn't this indicate there's an opportunity to do more work?
Two things: if the process is open to further comment --I hope it is-- then seeking to make modifications to the non-commercial proposals would be a good option. I suggest we only address the NCUC proposal, the other has little support. If the process is closed as you suggest, as ALAC can provide advice to the board as it wishes, can't we anyway suggest whatever we think best? In both situations we can say there should be a further review process and specify areas of the NCUC proposal that need to be resolved.
If we can take this route of extra comment, then let's be specific with our questions to the NCUC (example: verification of individuals, potential for capture by individuals... I know there's much more, but this is pretty specific and addressable.) Let's go through the NCUC proposal and say where each of us have problems and then we can either seek the facilitated discussion that was promised. Or perhaps better, a few of us start a discussion with Mary Wong, Bill Drake, Robin Gross etc and work through things ourselves.
And ICANN has to begin supporting the outreach. It's unrealistic to think the NCUC alone could find members from "educational, research, and philanthropic organizations, foundations, think tanks, members of academia, individual registrant groups and other noncommercial organizations etc". It's managed a few, but some of these are groups ICANN itself has had great difficulty engaging with. I know some NCUC members have tried, I've done a bit myself with no luck. Outreach of this kind needs ICANN's support.
Thanks,
Adam
Alan
At 15/04/2009 07:26 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
I feel like I have something of a conflict of interest, since I have a constituency proposal before the community for consumers. I can go as far as to say I have some concerns with both charters that I hope will be ironed out during the public comment and review process.
________________________________________
_______________________________________________ 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
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (7)
-
Adam Peake -
Alan Greenberg -
Brendler, Beau -
carlos aguirre -
Carlton Samuels -
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -
Wolf Ludwig