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.
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.
Thanks Alan nice work ( as usual) and as I am related by being a Member of an organisation that is part of the proposed Consumer Constituency it is important that I both declare this ( again as I have continually disclosed in all the discussions and meeting 8including the User House Meeting in Cairo and Mexico*) as well as stay at arms length from the drafting so as NOT to give bias... I trust any other ALAC members with connections to parties involved who will be making comment and contributing to the text we send and then vote on will do the same (obviously we note Beau's declaration as we do my own), and I am happy to make record of that at the meeting, under a heading of Continuous Disclosure... I know call for further comments on this text prepared by Alan *post haste* so that I can transmit the final text in a form that states it is under ratification at our next meeting by the close of the public comment deadline... CLO Alan Greenberg wrote:
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
I support the comments per Alan's draft. On the substance, I still believe that spreading individual user representation over several groups within ICANN is a "divide and conquer" strategy that only serves the interests of the domain name industry. I also feel sorry for the individuals that will be joining the NCSG that they will be limited to deal with the narrow topic of gTLD policy, even though there are more pressing issues for the individuals Internet users, like IP address scarcity that will directly affect them on a day to day basis. I understand that the focus of the ICANN community has been on the gTLD process and policy and that a NCSG of some sort will in any case go through. In that measure, I support the NCUC proposal. I would also suggest that as many ALSes and At-Large folks as possible join the new NCSG. Call it positive entryism, if you like. Hopefully, we could save some energy and resources by building larges bridges between both groups in developing statements in the gTLD context. Patrick On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:11:47 -0400, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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
Hello, More than "divide and conquer", spreading user representation between several groups within ICANN could neutralize one user group against another. This combined with the danger of a new or vulnerable group being captured or at least influenced by any non-user interest would end up making the user weak within ICANN. If ALSs and at-Large folks join the NCSG, they are likely to be seen as a cross-constituency presence, and the folks may not really feel comfortable ? Do we have separate gTLD Registrar constituency, a ccTLD Registrar constituency and an IDN Registrar constituency within ICANN or one single constituency for Registrars ? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://isocmadras.blogspot.com On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu> wrote:
I support the comments per Alan's draft.
On the substance, I still believe that spreading individual user representation over several groups within ICANN is a "divide and conquer" strategy that only serves the interests of the domain name industry. I also feel sorry for the individuals that will be joining the NCSG that they will be limited to deal with the narrow topic of gTLD policy, even though there are more pressing issues for the individuals Internet users, like IP address scarcity that will directly affect them on a day to day basis.
I understand that the focus of the ICANN community has been on the gTLD process and policy and that a NCSG of some sort will in any case go through. In that measure, I support the NCUC proposal. I would also suggest that as many ALSes and At-Large folks as possible join the new NCSG. Call it positive entryism, if you like. Hopefully, we could save some energy and resources by building larges bridges between both groups in developing statements in the gTLD context.
Patrick
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:11:47 -0400, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:29:12 +0530, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: Hello, More than "divide and conquer", spreading user representation between several groups within ICANN could neutralize one user group against another. This combined with the danger of a new or vulnerable group being captured or at least influenced by any non-user interest would end up making the user weak within ICANN. If ALSs and at-Large folks join the NCSG, they are likely to be seen as a cross-constituency presence, and the folks may not really feel comfortable ? Do we have separate gTLD Registrar constituency, a ccTLD Registrar constituency and an IDN Registrar constituency within ICANN or one single constituency for Registrars ? Thanks Siva, My approach is that there is significant overlap between At-Large/ALS/ALAC and NCSG, both on content and potential target population. As you mention, there is a risk that spreading user representation could neutralize one group against another. Hence my suggestion that the same groups could be present on both sides. This would add some coherence is the user representation and actually reinforce the users viewpoints. This may also help to put an end to the long standing acrimony between ALAC and NCUC. AFAIK, the registrars constituency is made of ICANN-accredited registrars. The fact most of them also sell ccTLD domain names is correct. However, this part of their business is outside ICANN's remit. Patrick
I have3 been in business and ICANN conference calls all day, and am just now reading these many posts. I will try to excerpt the relevant thoughts and address them all in one mail. I must say it is delightful to actually see a conversation going on here! Alan At 16/04/2009 01:55 AM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
I also feel sorry for the individuals that will be joining the NCSG that they will be limited to deal with the narrow topic of gTLD policy,...
That is why we have repeatedly advocated both clear descriptions of the GNSO and its parts, and outreach - so that there is no misunderstanding of what this group will be doing.
I would also suggest that as many ALSes and At-Large folks as possible join the new NCSG. Call it positive entryism, if you like. Hopefully, we could save some energy and resources by building larges bridges between both groups in developing statements in the gTLD context.
This kind of statement scares me for two reasons. First, we have for many months, in many both formal and informal settings, that the ALAC does not expect or support massive ALS membership in the NCSG or one of its Constituencies. It is the concept of such a thing happening that has prompted many members of the community and Board members to say that there should be no user representation on the GNSO, because to do so will confuse the community about where users are represented, and in light of the recommendation that At-Large have voting Board members, it would give these people two ways to elect Board members - a real no-no. Secondly, the last thing the GNSO needs is for organizations to join who are not committed to actually working on gTLD policy. =========== At 16/04/2009 06:59 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
Do we have separate gTLD Registrar constituency, a ccTLD Registrar constituency and an IDN Registrar constituency within ICANN or one single constituency for Registrars ?
ccTLD registrars do not come into this discussion, because they do not necessarily have contracts with ICANN, and if they did, it would be under the auspices of the ccNSO. An IDN Registrar Constituency? One does not exist today, but it is quite possible that one could form and be part of the Registrar Stakeholders Group under the reformed GNSO. =========== At 16/04/2009 08:03 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Does nobody else but me have a deep-rooted objection to the whole concept of the contracted parties having a significant say in GNSO policy? Why is ALAC just lying down dead in refusing to challenge this core principle, preferring instead to validate the in-fighting over how to slice up the scraps left to represent the non-contracted (ie, the billions of the rest of us)?
The *DUTY* of ALAC is to advise ICANN on the public interest.... and in the matter of the GNSO restructure it has, at least to these eyes, utterly shirked this duty. We should be telling the Board that (or at least driving debate over whether) the core doctrine of "fairness" between contracted and non-contracted parties is WRONG. As an AC we have the ability -- and the responsibility -- to confront bad core assumptions. Instead I see ALAC taking the easy way out, being satisfied with trying to clean up the damage caused by those bad assumptions rather than challenging the assumptions themselves.
A year ago, the ALAC supported the three-stakeholder group suggested by the business constituencies. This model would have given Registrars combined with registries 28-33% of GNSO Council votes and voices. It was not adopted. I don't find that there is any merit in continuing to fight that battle. When the GNSO is next reviewed, we could of course raise the issue again. But what is to be gained by putting energy into this now? =========== At 16/04/2009 09:16 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
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).
It is now in the hands of the Board to decide whether to accept or reject the proposals. If they reject, as a Constituency in formation, you will be in the position to demand a seat at the table to help hammer out a charter that does "offer much to newcomers". No need to withdraw yet. =========== At 16/04/2009 09:16 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
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.
Thank you.
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?
What's going on here is that the CSG decided that they could not address the long-term situation at the moment, and decided on a very clean and simple interim charter. This has been suggested for the NCSG, but it was categorically rejected. We suggested it again in the fourth bullet of the statement that I submitted yesterday on behalf of the ALAC (to be ratified, or not, on the 28th).
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.
If the Board rejects both proposals, then I assume that this is exactly what will happen. Hopefully with Beau's new almost-Constituency at the table formally. =========== At 16/04/2009 10:25 AM, carlos aguirre wrote:
I assume my fault part of this, but we have an actively, and -de facto- ExCom which they should have seen this before.
Both ExCom people and others have been addressing this for a long time now. We just have not been successful. =========== At 16/04/2009 11:02 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
Trying to explain that charter to consumer groups, for me, is a non-starter.
A good point that has not been raised before! ===========
Hello Alan,
At 16/04/2009 06:59 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
Do we have separate gTLD Registrar constituency, a ccTLD Registrar constituency and an IDN Registrar constituency within ICANN or one single constituency for Registrars ?
ccTLD registrars do not come into this discussion, because they do not necessarily have contracts with ICANN, and if they did, it would be under the auspices of the ccNSO. An IDN Registrar Constituency? One does not exist today, but it is quite possible that one could form and be part of the Registrar Stakeholders Group under the reformed GNSO.
The essence of what I said seems to be missed. I was saying that Registrars as as an example of a business group are present within the ICANN structure in unison, whereas the users are demarcated... Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.
I am unconvinced of the need to say something. Certainly nothing of the kind of comment I have seen to date. Does nobody else but me have a deep-rooted objection to the whole concept of the contracted parties having a significant say in GNSO policy? Why is ALAC just lying down dead in refusing to challenge this core principle, preferring instead to validate the in-fighting over how to slice up the scraps left to represent the non-contracted (ie, the billions of the rest of us)? The *DUTY* of ALAC is to advise ICANN on the public interest.... and in the matter of the GNSO restructure it has, at least to these eyes, utterly shirked this duty. We should be telling the Board that (or at least driving debate over whether) the core doctrine of "fairness" between contracted and non-contracted parties is WRONG. As an AC we have the ability -- and the responsibility -- to confront bad core assumptions. Instead I see ALAC taking the easy way out, being satisfied with trying to clean up the damage caused by those bad assumptions rather than challenging the assumptions themselves. As it is, the relatively trivial matter of GNSO user house restructuring can come and go without ALAC comment so far as I'm concerned. Sometimes being silent can be a statement on its own.... - Evan
Hi Evan, Evan Leibovitch wrote Thu, 16 Apr 2009 08:03: (...)
Does nobody else but me have a deep-rooted objection to the whole concept of the contracted parties having a significant say in GNSO policy?
As sb who has no vote in this matter, let me tell you that I share your doubts about the concept and basics, and I have a similar conflicting attitude in this respect. My intention, concern and key question is - as you said - *the public interest...* -- but I am not sure whether your suggested way of abstention or "being silent can be a statement on its own" may be a more appropriate response to pursue and promote this public interest? Best, Wolf
Why is ALAC just lying down dead in refusing to challenge this core principle, preferring instead to validate the in-fighting over how to slice up the scraps left to represent the non-contracted (ie, the billions of the rest of us)?
The *DUTY* of ALAC is to advise ICANN on the public interest.... and in the matter of the GNSO restructure it has, at least to these eyes, utterly shirked this duty. We should be telling the Board that (or at least driving debate over whether) the core doctrine of "fairness" between contracted and non-contracted parties is WRONG. As an AC we have the ability -- and the responsibility -- to confront bad core assumptions. Instead I see ALAC taking the easy way out, being satisfied with trying to clean up the damage caused by those bad assumptions rather than challenging the assumptions themselves.
As it is, the relatively trivial matter of GNSO user house restructuring can come and go without ALAC comment so far as I'm concerned. Sometimes being silent can be a statement on its own....
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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
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
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Brendler, Beau -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Evan Leibovitch -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -
Wolf Ludwig