Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter
OK, fair enough. Perhaps I went too far -- apologies for offence. And I didn't know Wolf shared Adam's concerns. I guess I am wondering why these issues are coming up now, as opposed to when the ALAC last voted in favor of the constituency? (And by the way, from what I am told, the board liaison told the board at that time that the ALAC did >not< support the constituency, even though it had voted to do so -- correct me if I am wrong).
From what I have been told by the board, in Seoul and in later discussion, the board doesn't want to be heavy-handed in its application of bylaws and rules at this point. It wants the community to decide. So I am wondering now why there's resistance to the board approving the constituency, especially since we are more organized than we were before, have a board-appointed representative working with and for us, and are more actively engaged in outreach? In which case, I am wondering: Does the concern for perfect geographic representation at start-up, trump the need for trying to get something like this going, and getting people to join it? Why would we, the at-large, be seeking to apply bylaw interpretations that would be more stringent in this case than the ICANN board's?
Also -- and those of you who have tried to start up a group may sympathize with this -- it's difficult to get a venture off the ground before it's a reality. It's hard to go to other organizations and say, "please join this constituency, though it may not become a reality, the application has been before the board for more than eight months now, oh, and by the way, we have a board-appointed representative we can't elect, or recall, or even guarantee will listen to us, for at least two years?" Also, from what I understand -- and the possibility exists it's hearsay -- the board wanted a second round of public comment on the consumer constituency because it was concerned the constituency was some sort of ICANN staff creation. If that's true, somebody please tell me about it. Some evidence would be nice as well. That's the situation the constituency is in. And we have actually made it farther in the process than the other three constituencies that applied. Given all that, I am surprised that EKPIZO, a Greek consumer organization, joined a few weeks ago. I am surprised Rosemary (the board appointed representative, who actually does listen to us, by the way) has had some success getting some other groups, from France and elsewhere, to talk to us. So I hope you will understand my frustration when I don't hear a lot of support from parts of the ICANN community that are supposed to be defending the interests of consumers and users, and that a number of the people who have stepped forward to promote the idea of a consumers constituency have been subjected to a range of personal attacks (which we might have expected -- from business interests who might feel threatened by a consumers constituency. Yet they've been quiet on the matter. It's "civil society" that's been raising the obstacles.) I hope you will further understand my frustration with the ICANN board, which opened this process up to constituency applications more than a year ago, appointed a "structural improvements committee" that didn't listen to its constituents (at least in my experience), has required volunteers to donate their time writing NOIFs and charter documents and making presentations and so forth, then rules out three out of four constituency applicants and subjects the fourth to repeated delays. I wish I was getting paid by ICANN (or somebody) for doing this, but I ain't. If this is just some sort of meaningless exercise in bureaucracy, well, fool me twice and shame on me. So, Cervantes aside, perhaps you can understand why I might wonder if there are other issues beneath the surface? What we need is help recruiting consumer organizations from LA and AF, or at least sharing contacts? Shouldn't this be a no-brainer for those of us who have a goal to represent the public interest? If you don't want to deal with me, you can also talk to Holly Raiche of ICANN, the proposed constituency's co-chair. -----Original Message-----
From: Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> Sent: Jan 29, 2010 6:44 PM To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net>, Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>, alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: h.raiche@internode.on.net Subject: Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter
I don't understand what's wrong with Adam's comments? And I don't like to be denunciated as "IGF crowd" neither. If this is called a consultation it should be done impersonal ...
Best, Wolf
Beau Brendler wrote Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:42:
Happy to be compared to Don Quixote -- thanks! Not so excited about the tone of "provide details of membership behind the constituency," which implies we are not being transparent about something. The details have been repeatedly stated, so if there's something you want to say, say it. Unless it's a rehash of NCUC conspiracy theories from the last time around.
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> Sent: Jan 29, 2010 11:08 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: h.raiche@internode.on.net Subject: Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter
At 9:48 AM -0500 1/29/10, Beau Brendler wrote:
Adam...if you're carrying the IGF crowd's water on this,
No idea what you're talking about.
How about less tilting at windmills, and provide details of membership behind the constituency.
At 3:19 AM +0900 1/26/10, Adam Peake wrote:
It would be good to know how membership of the constituency is progressing. The notice of intent to create a constituency mentions some, and some outreach that will be done. What progress has been made?
The constituency is important. But it needs to meet membership thresholds before launch. Or it'll be a bad precedent (for one thing.) Hopefully they've achieved regional diversity and appropriate level of interest.
Adam
we probably should debate the following language in the bylaws (http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.3):
"Recognition is granted by the Board >based upon the extent< to which, in fact, the entity represents the global interests of the stakeholder communities..."
The consumers constituency has representation from North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific, where most of the world's consumer organizations (and umbrella organizations that represent developing countries) are based. Each of these is an organization, meaning it's got members -- in Rudi's case, 10,000 Belgians. So it's a judgment call on the definition of "extent."
And then, in 4b:
"A detailed explanation of >why the proposed new Constituency adequately represents, on a global basis,< the stakeholders it seeks to represent..."
Instead of the IGF crowd make degree determinations on "adequately" and "upon the extent," why not let the ALAC, which has some experience struggling with the issues of fair and appropriate representation from global regions, make its own judgment? We were less organized and represented the last time around.
By the way, I think it's a great idea to ask that ICANN fund a consumer issues event in Brussels. I think we ought to put that up for a separate vote!
Then there is this to consider, from http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4b ------------------------------ The Board may create new Constituencies as described in Section 5(3) in response to such a petition, or on its own motion, if the Board determines that such action would serve the purposes of ICANN. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing all comments received. ------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> Sent: Jan 29, 2010 8:55 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter
At 8:12 AM -0500 1/29/10, Beau Brendler wrote:
Adam...thanks for your comments.
Is "global representation" the new buzzword by which the Internet governance crowd plans to try to defeat this petition this time around?
No, language from the ICANN bylaws.
The first section <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.3> is new to the stakeholder group arrangement of the various contracted houses. The second <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4b> has been in various versions of the bylaws since the evolution and reform process of 2002.
I suppose that's better than attacking its participants as frauds.
Thanks,
Adam
-----Original Message----- >From: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> >Sent: Jan 29, 2010 7:11 AM >To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter > >I strongly support the creation of the constituency, however not this >application with the membership as described in the text. > >On recognition of a new Constituency ICANN bylaws ><http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.3> say: > >"Recognition is granted by the Board based upon the extent to which, >in fact, the entity represents the global interests of the >stakeholder communities it purports to represent..." > >and the following section <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4b> > >"A detailed explanation of why the proposed new Constituency >adequately represents, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks >to represent;" > >Membership as described is not globally representative. Recognition >on the grounds that it's a "Good start" would be setting a very poor >precedent for future constituency applications (and would seem to be >contrary to the language "in fact" in section 5.3?) > >So for now I would say: > >As it did during the previous public comment period earlier this >year, the At-Large Advisory Committee states its support for the >creation of a consumer constituency in the non-commercial stakeholder >group in the GNSO. Since one of At-Large's goals is to support the >interests of all Internet users, we believe that consumer and public >interest groups must [should] have a strong representative voice in >the GNSO policymaking environment. > >We applaud the organizers' efforts to recruit additional >organizations, however at this time we do not believe the applicant >has met an acceptable standard of representing the global interests >of consumers as the ICANN bylaws require. As such we do not recommend >the board approve the constituency application at this time. However, >we very strongly urge the board to support the applicant in further >outreach to national and international consumer organizations, >including providing funds to enable representatives of interested >groups to attend an ICANN meeting, we suggest Brussels, where >sessions relevant to consumer interests relevant to the scope of >ICANN's work should be held. > >Adam > > >>As the ALAC Meeting asked for you to put a simple Statement reflecting our >>previously stated views on this together and to respond to the current >>update on the petition, personally I'm happy for this to go to Vote now >>unless someone on this list objects... (In the next 12-24 hrs) >>and if we do >>need to edit / discuss we need that to happen in short order over the next >>few days... Then we need to send it to Public Comments (be nice to have >>something in ahead of the deadline ;-) >> >>CLO >> >>2010/1/29 Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> >> >>> So I thought I would run this by you both. If you like it feel >>>free to post >>> it to the list for comment or straight to the ALAC for a vote, >>>I guess (?). >>> I see no reason for it to be long. >>> ------------------ >> > As it did during the previous public comment period earlier >>this year, the >>> At-Large Advisory Committee states its support for the creation of a >>> consumer constituency in the non-commercial stakeholder group >>>in the GNSO. >>> Since one of At-Large's goals is to support the interests of all Internet >>> users, we believe that consumer and public interest groups >>>should have a >>> strong representative voice in the GNSO policymaking >>>environment. We applaud >> > the organizers' efforts to recruit additional organizations, >>including the >>> Greek consumer group EKPIZO, and to obtain formal commitments >>>from those who >>> have already expressed interest. Consumers' constituency >>>members come from >>> Canada, Belgium, Greece, Slovenia and Australia and we believe this >>> represents a small, but good start in obtaining broad geographic >> > representation. We encourage the board to approve the >>constituency so that >>> its organizers can recruit new members from a solid foundation. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >>> >Sent: Jan 27, 2010 11:25 AM >>> >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> >> > >Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> >> > >Subject: Fwd: Re: [ALAC] Policy Advice Schedule - New Constituency >>> Petition and Charter >>> > >>> >Beau, another blank message from you! Alan >>> > >>> > >>> >>From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> >>> >>To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> >>> >>CC: At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Staff >>> >> <staff@atlarge.icann.org> >>> >>Sender: "alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org" >>> >> <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> >>Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:01:44 -0500 >>> >>Subject: Re: [ALAC] Policy Advice Schedule - New >>>Constituency Petition >>> and >>> >> Charter >>> >>Thread-Topic: [ALAC] Policy Advice Schedule - New >>>Constituency Petition >>> and >>> >> Charter >>> >>Thread-Index: AcqfYc8nYelHhGIjRrOQg2guOvMrAQ== >>> >>Reply-To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> >>> >>Accept-Language: en-US >>> >>domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; >>> >> d=earthlink.net; >>> >> >>> b=kMEESj+wjiJbM74k7z+Z9++uOHq1ejYLLrPKWO/oeKAh+ZBEIAkK/8VMGNs0ALjx; >>> >> >>> >>> >>>>>h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>> >>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 >>> > >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >>Cheryl Langdon-Orr >>(CLO) >>_______________________________________________ >>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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 Allmend http://blog.allmend.ch -
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
I'm not commenting on the interchange as my views have been made clear throughout this process over and over again=> But just a small but significant typo I noted (maybe this is how incorrect assumptions and rumors get started :?: Beau typed "...Holly Raiche of ICANN, the proposed constituency's co-chair." it should read "...Holly Raiche of ACCAN, the proposed constituency's co-chair." CLO 2010/1/31 Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net>
OK, fair enough. Perhaps I went too far -- apologies for offence. And I didn't know Wolf shared Adam's concerns.
I guess I am wondering why these issues are coming up now, as opposed to when the ALAC last voted in favor of the constituency? (And by the way, from what I am told, the board liaison told the board at that time that the ALAC did >not< support the constituency, even though it had voted to do so -- correct me if I am wrong).
From what I have been told by the board, in Seoul and in later discussion, the board doesn't want to be heavy-handed in its application of bylaws and rules at this point. It wants the community to decide. So I am wondering now why there's resistance to the board approving the constituency, especially since we are more organized than we were before, have a board-appointed representative working with and for us, and are more actively engaged in outreach? In which case, I am wondering: Does the concern for perfect geographic representation at start-up, trump the need for trying to get something like this going, and getting people to join it? Why would we, the at-large, be seeking to apply bylaw interpretations that would be more stringent in this case than the ICANN board's?
Also -- and those of you who have tried to start up a group may sympathize with this -- it's difficult to get a venture off the ground before it's a reality. It's hard to go to other organizations and say, "please join this constituency, though it may not become a reality, the application has been before the board for more than eight months now, oh, and by the way, we have a board-appointed representative we can't elect, or recall, or even guarantee will listen to us, for at least two years?"
Also, from what I understand -- and the possibility exists it's hearsay -- the board wanted a second round of public comment on the consumer constituency because it was concerned the constituency was some sort of ICANN staff creation. If that's true, somebody please tell me about it. Some evidence would be nice as well.
That's the situation the constituency is in. And we have actually made it farther in the process than the other three constituencies that applied. Given all that, I am surprised that EKPIZO, a Greek consumer organization, joined a few weeks ago. I am surprised Rosemary (the board appointed representative, who actually does listen to us, by the way) has had some success getting some other groups, from France and elsewhere, to talk to us.
So I hope you will understand my frustration when I don't hear a lot of support from parts of the ICANN community that are supposed to be defending the interests of consumers and users, and that a number of the people who have stepped forward to promote the idea of a consumers constituency have been subjected to a range of personal attacks (which we might have expected -- from business interests who might feel threatened by a consumers constituency. Yet they've been quiet on the matter. It's "civil society" that's been raising the obstacles.)
I hope you will further understand my frustration with the ICANN board, which opened this process up to constituency applications more than a year ago, appointed a "structural improvements committee" that didn't listen to its constituents (at least in my experience), has required volunteers to donate their time writing NOIFs and charter documents and making presentations and so forth, then rules out three out of four constituency applicants and subjects the fourth to repeated delays. I wish I was getting paid by ICANN (or somebody) for doing this, but I ain't. If this is just some sort of meaningless exercise in bureaucracy, well, fool me twice and shame on me.
So, Cervantes aside, perhaps you can understand why I might wonder if there are other issues beneath the surface?
What we need is help recruiting consumer organizations from LA and AF, or at least sharing contacts? Shouldn't this be a no-brainer for those of us who have a goal to represent the public interest? If you don't want to deal with me, you can also talk to Holly Raiche of ICANN, the proposed constituency's co-chair.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> Sent: Jan 29, 2010 6:44 PM To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net>, Adam Peake < ajp@glocom.ac.jp>, alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: h.raiche@internode.on.net Subject: Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter
I don't understand what's wrong with Adam's comments? And I don't like to be denunciated as "IGF crowd" neither. If this is called a consultation it should be done impersonal ...
Best, Wolf
Beau Brendler wrote Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:42:
Happy to be compared to Don Quixote -- thanks! Not so excited about the tone of "provide details of membership behind the constituency," which implies we are not being transparent about something. The details have been repeatedly stated, so if there's something you want to say, say it. Unless it's a rehash of NCUC conspiracy theories from the last time around.
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> Sent: Jan 29, 2010 11:08 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: h.raiche@internode.on.net Subject: Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter
At 9:48 AM -0500 1/29/10, Beau Brendler wrote:
Adam...if you're carrying the IGF crowd's water on this,
No idea what you're talking about.
How about less tilting at windmills, and provide details of membership behind the constituency.
At 3:19 AM +0900 1/26/10, Adam Peake wrote:
It would be good to know how membership of the constituency is progressing. The notice of intent to create a constituency mentions some, and some outreach that will be done. What progress has been made?
The constituency is important. But it needs to meet membership thresholds before launch. Or it'll be a bad precedent (for one thing.) Hopefully they've achieved regional diversity and appropriate level of interest.
Adam
we probably should debate the following language in the bylaws (http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.3):
"Recognition is granted by the Board >based upon the extent< to which, in fact, the entity represents the global interests of the stakeholder communities..."
The consumers constituency has representation from North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific, where most of the world's consumer organizations (and umbrella organizations that represent developing countries) are based. Each of these is an organization, meaning it's got members -- in Rudi's case, 10,000 Belgians. So it's a judgment call on the definition of "extent."
And then, in 4b:
"A detailed explanation of >why the proposed new Constituency adequately represents, on a global basis,< the stakeholders it seeks to represent..."
Instead of the IGF crowd make degree determinations on "adequately" and "upon the extent," why not let the ALAC, which has some experience struggling with the issues of fair and appropriate representation from global regions, make its own judgment? We were less organized and represented the last time around.
By the way, I think it's a great idea to ask that ICANN fund a consumer issues event in Brussels. I think we ought to put that up for a separate vote!
Then there is this to consider, from http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4b ------------------------------ The Board may create new Constituencies as described in Section 5(3) in response to such a petition, or on its own motion, if the Board determines that such action would serve the purposes of ICANN. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing all comments received. ------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> Sent: Jan 29, 2010 8:55 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter
At 8:12 AM -0500 1/29/10, Beau Brendler wrote: >Adam...thanks for your comments. > >Is "global representation" the new buzzword by which the Internet >governance crowd plans to try to defeat this petition this time >around?
No, language from the ICANN bylaws.
The first section <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.3> is new to the stakeholder group arrangement of the various contracted houses. The second <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4b> has been in various versions of the bylaws since the evolution and reform process of 2002.
>I suppose that's better than attacking its participants as frauds. >
Thanks,
Adam
>-----Original Message----- >>From: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> >>Sent: Jan 29, 2010 7:11 AM >>To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org >>Subject: Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter >> >>I strongly support the creation of the constituency, however not this >>application with the membership as described in the text. >> >>On recognition of a new Constituency ICANN bylaws > ><http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.3> say: >> >>"Recognition is granted by the Board based upon the extent to which, >>in fact, the entity represents the global interests of the >>stakeholder communities it purports to represent..." >> > >and the following section ><http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4b> >> >>"A detailed explanation of why the proposed new Constituency > >adequately represents, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks >>to represent;" >> >>Membership as described is not globally representative. Recognition >>on the grounds that it's a "Good start" would be setting a very poor >>precedent for future constituency applications (and would seem to be >>contrary to the language "in fact" in section 5.3?) >> >>So for now I would say: >> >>As it did during the previous public comment period earlier this >>year, the At-Large Advisory Committee states its support for the >>creation of a consumer constituency in the non-commercial stakeholder >>group in the GNSO. Since one of At-Large's goals is to support the >>interests of all Internet users, we believe that consumer and public >>interest groups must [should] have a strong representative voice in >>the GNSO policymaking environment. >> >>We applaud the organizers' efforts to recruit additional >>organizations, however at this time we do not believe the applicant >>has met an acceptable standard of representing the global interests >>of consumers as the ICANN bylaws require. As such we do not recommend >>the board approve the constituency application at this time. However, >>we very strongly urge the board to support the applicant in further >>outreach to national and international consumer organizations, >>including providing funds to enable representatives of interested >>groups to attend an ICANN meeting, we suggest Brussels, where >>sessions relevant to consumer interests relevant to the scope of >>ICANN's work should be held. >> >>Adam >> >> >>>As the ALAC Meeting asked for you to put a simple Statement reflecting our >>>previously stated views on this together and to respond to the current >>>update on the petition, personally I'm happy for this to go to Vote now >>>unless someone on this list objects... (In the next 12-24 hrs) >>>and if we do >>>need to edit / discuss we need that to happen in short order over the next >>>few days... Then we need to send it to Public Comments (be nice to have >>>something in ahead of the deadline ;-) >>> >>>CLO >>> >>>2010/1/29 Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> >>> >>>> So I thought I would run this by you both. If you like it feel >>>>free to post >>>> it to the list for comment or straight to the ALAC for a vote, >>>>I guess (?). >>>> I see no reason for it to be long. >>>> ------------------ >>> > As it did during the previous public comment period earlier >>>this year, the >>>> At-Large Advisory Committee states its support for the creation of a >>>> consumer constituency in the non-commercial stakeholder group >>>>in the GNSO. > >>> Since one of At-Large's goals is to support the interests of >all Internet >>>> users, we believe that consumer and public interest groups >>>>should have a >>>> strong representative voice in the GNSO policymaking >>>>environment. We applaud >>> > the organizers' efforts to recruit additional organizations, >>>including the >>>> Greek consumer group EKPIZO, and to obtain formal commitments >>>>from those who >>>> have already expressed interest. Consumers' constituency >>>>members come from >>>> Canada, Belgium, Greece, Slovenia and Australia and we believe this >>>> represents a small, but good start in obtaining broad geographic >>> > representation. We encourage the board to approve the >>>constituency so that >>>> its organizers can recruit new members from a solid foundation. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >>>> >Sent: Jan 27, 2010 11:25 AM >>>> >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> >>> > >Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> >>> > >Subject: Fwd: Re: [ALAC] Policy Advice Schedule - New Constituency >>>> Petition and Charter >>>> > >>>> >Beau, another blank message from you! Alan >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> >>>> >>To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> >>>> >>CC: At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Staff >>>> >> <staff@atlarge.icann.org> >>>> >>Sender: "alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org" >>>> >> <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>> >>Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:01:44 -0500 >>>> >>Subject: Re: [ALAC] Policy Advice Schedule - New >>>>Constituency Petition >>>> and >>>> >> Charter >>>> >>Thread-Topic: [ALAC] Policy Advice Schedule - New >>>>Constituency Petition >>>> and >>>> >> Charter >>>> >>Thread-Index: AcqfYc8nYelHhGIjRrOQg2guOvMrAQ== >>>> >>Reply-To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> >>>> >>Accept-Language: en-US >>>> >>domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; >>>> >> d=earthlink.net; >>>> >> >>>> b=kMEESj+wjiJbM74k7z+Z9++uOHq1ejYLLrPKWO/oeKAh+ZBEIAkK/8VMGNs0ALjx; >>>> >> >>>> >>>>
>>>>>>h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>_______________________________________________ >>>> >>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 >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr >>>(CLO) >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 Allmend http://blog.allmend.ch -
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
Uh, yes, whoops. Not even Freudian. Sent from my iPhone On 30/01/2010, at 3:37 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not commenting on the interchange as my views have been made clear throughout this process over and over again=> But just a small but significant typo I noted (maybe this is how incorrect assumptions and rumors get started :?:
Beau typed "...Holly Raiche of ICANN, the proposed constituency's co- chair." it should read "...Holly Raiche of ACCAN, the proposed constituency's co-chair."
CLO
2010/1/31 Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> OK, fair enough. Perhaps I went too far -- apologies for offence. And I didn't know Wolf shared Adam's concerns.
I guess I am wondering why these issues are coming up now, as opposed to when the ALAC last voted in favor of the constituency? (And by the way, from what I am told, the board liaison told the board at that time that the ALAC did >not< support the constituency, even though it had voted to do so -- correct me if I am wrong).
From what I have been told by the board, in Seoul and in later discussion, the board doesn't want to be heavy-handed in its application of bylaws and rules at this point. It wants the community to decide. So I am wondering now why there's resistance to the board approving the constituency, especially since we are more organized than we were before, have a board-appointed representative working with and for us, and are more actively engaged in outreach? In which case, I am wondering: Does the concern for perfect geographic representation at start-up, trump the need for trying to get something like this going, and getting people to join it? Why would we, the at-large, be seeking to apply bylaw interpretations that would be more stringent in this case than the ICANN board's?
Also -- and those of you who have tried to start up a group may sympathize with this -- it's difficult to get a venture off the ground before it's a reality. It's hard to go to other organizations and say, "please join this constituency, though it may not become a reality, the application has been before the board for more than eight months now, oh, and by the way, we have a board-appointed representative we can't elect, or recall, or even guarantee will listen to us, for at least two years?"
Also, from what I understand -- and the possibility exists it's hearsay -- the board wanted a second round of public comment on the consumer constituency because it was concerned the constituency was some sort of ICANN staff creation. If that's true, somebody please tell me about it. Some evidence would be nice as well.
That's the situation the constituency is in. And we have actually made it farther in the process than the other three constituencies that applied. Given all that, I am surprised that EKPIZO, a Greek consumer organization, joined a few weeks ago. I am surprised Rosemary (the board appointed representative, who actually does listen to us, by the way) has had some success getting some other groups, from France and elsewhere, to talk to us.
So I hope you will understand my frustration when I don't hear a lot of support from parts of the ICANN community that are supposed to be defending the interests of consumers and users, and that a number of the people who have stepped forward to promote the idea of a consumers constituency have been subjected to a range of personal attacks (which we might have expected -- from business interests who might feel threatened by a consumers constituency. Yet they've been quiet on the matter. It's "civil society" that's been raising the obstacles.)
I hope you will further understand my frustration with the ICANN board, which opened this process up to constituency applications more than a year ago, appointed a "structural improvements committee" that didn't listen to its constituents (at least in my experience), has required volunteers to donate their time writing NOIFs and charter documents and making presentations and so forth, then rules out three out of four constituency applicants and subjects the fourth to repeated delays. I wish I was getting paid by ICANN (or somebody) for doing this, but I ain't. If this is just some sort of meaningless exercise in bureaucracy, well, fool me twice and shame on me.
So, Cervantes aside, perhaps you can understand why I might wonder if there are other issues beneath the surface?
What we need is help recruiting consumer organizations from LA and AF, or at least sharing contacts? Shouldn't this be a no-brainer for those of us who have a goal to represent the public interest? If you don't want to deal with me, you can also talk to Holly Raiche of ICANN, the proposed constituency's co-chair.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> Sent: Jan 29, 2010 6:44 PM To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net>, Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp , alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: h.raiche@internode.on.net Subject: Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter
I don't understand what's wrong with Adam's comments? And I don't like to be denunciated as "IGF crowd" neither. If this is called a consultation it should be done impersonal ...
Best, Wolf
Beau Brendler wrote Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:42:
Happy to be compared to Don Quixote -- thanks! Not so excited about the tone of "provide details of membership behind the constituency," which implies we are not being transparent about something. The details have been repeatedly stated, so if there's something you want to say, say it. Unless it's a rehash of NCUC conspiracy theories from the last time around.
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> Sent: Jan 29, 2010 11:08 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: h.raiche@internode.on.net Subject: Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter
At 9:48 AM -0500 1/29/10, Beau Brendler wrote:
Adam...if you're carrying the IGF crowd's water on this,
No idea what you're talking about.
How about less tilting at windmills, and provide details of membership behind the constituency.
At 3:19 AM +0900 1/26/10, Adam Peake wrote:
It would be good to know how membership of the constituency is progressing. The notice of intent to create a constituency
mentions
some, and some outreach that will be done. What progress has been made?
The constituency is important. But it needs to meet membership thresholds before launch. Or it'll be a bad precedent (for one thing.) Hopefully they've achieved regional diversity and appropriate level of interest.
Adam
we probably should debate the following language in the bylaws (http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.3):
"Recognition is granted by the Board >based upon the extent< to which, in fact, the entity represents the global interests of the stakeholder communities..."
The consumers constituency has representation from North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific, where most of the world's consumer organizations (and umbrella organizations that represent developing countries) are based. Each of these is an organization, meaning it's got members -- in Rudi's case, 10,000 Belgians. So it's a judgment call on the definition of "extent."
And then, in 4b:
"A detailed explanation of >why the proposed new Constituency adequately represents, on a global basis,< the stakeholders it seeks to represent..."
Instead of the IGF crowd make degree determinations on "adequately" and "upon the extent," why not let the ALAC, which has some experience struggling with the issues of fair and appropriate representation from global regions, make its own judgment? We were less organized and represented the last time around.
By the way, I think it's a great idea to ask that ICANN fund a consumer issues event in Brussels. I think we ought to put that up for a separate vote!
Then there is this to consider, from http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4b ------------------------------ The Board may create new Constituencies as described in Section 5 (3) in response to such a petition, or on its own motion, if the Board determines that such action would serve the purposes of ICANN. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing all comments received. ------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> Sent: Jan 29, 2010 8:55 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter
At 8:12 AM -0500 1/29/10, Beau Brendler wrote: >Adam...thanks for your comments. > >Is "global representation" the new buzzword by which the Internet >governance crowd plans to try to defeat this petition this time >around?
No, language from the ICANN bylaws.
The first section <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.3
is new to the stakeholder group arrangement of the various contracted houses. The second <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4b> has been in various versions of the bylaws since the evolution and reform process of 2002.
>I suppose that's better than attacking its participants as frauds. >
Thanks,
Adam
>-----Original Message----- >>From: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> >>Sent: Jan 29, 2010 7:11 AM >>To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org >>Subject: Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter >> >>I strongly support the creation of the constituency, however not this >>application with the membership as described in the text. >> >>On recognition of a new Constituency ICANN bylaws > ><http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.3> say: >> >>"Recognition is granted by the Board based upon the extent to which, >>in fact, the entity represents the global interests of the >>stakeholder communities it purports to represent..." >> > >and the following section ><http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4b> >> >>"A detailed explanation of why the proposed new Constituency > >adequately represents, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks >>to represent;" >> >>Membership as described is not globally representative. Recognition >>on the grounds that it's a "Good start" would be setting a very poor >>precedent for future constituency applications (and would seem to be >>contrary to the language "in fact" in section 5.3?) >> >>So for now I would say: >> >>As it did during the previous public comment period earlier this >>year, the At-Large Advisory Committee states its support for the >>creation of a consumer constituency in the non-commercial stakeholder >>group in the GNSO. Since one of At-Large's goals is to support the >>interests of all Internet users, we believe that consumer and public >>interest groups must [should] have a strong representative voice in >>the GNSO policymaking environment. >> >>We applaud the organizers' efforts to recruit additional >>organizations, however at this time we do not believe the applicant >>has met an acceptable standard of representing the global interests >>of consumers as the ICANN bylaws require. As such we do not recommend >>the board approve the constituency application at this time. However, >>we very strongly urge the board to support the applicant in further >>outreach to national and international consumer organizations, >>including providing funds to enable representatives of interested >>groups to attend an ICANN meeting, we suggest Brussels, where >>sessions relevant to consumer interests relevant to the scope of >>ICANN's work should be held. >> >>Adam >> >> >>>As the ALAC Meeting asked for you to put a simple Statement reflecting our >>>previously stated views on this together and to respond to the current >>>update on the petition, personally I'm happy for this to go to Vote now >>>unless someone on this list objects... (In the next 12-24 hrs) >>>and if we do >>>need to edit / discuss we need that to happen in short order over the next >>>few days... Then we need to send it to Public Comments (be nice to have >>>something in ahead of the deadline ;-) >>> >>>CLO >>> >>>2010/1/29 Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> >>> >>>> So I thought I would run this by you both. If you like it feel >>>>free to post >>>> it to the list for comment or straight to the ALAC for a vote, >>>>I guess (?). >>>> I see no reason for it to be long. >>>> ------------------ >>> > As it did during the previous public comment period earlier >>>this year, the >>>> At-Large Advisory Committee states its support for the creation of a >>>> consumer constituency in the non-commercial stakeholder group >>>>in the GNSO. > >>> Since one of At-Large's goals is to support the interests of >all Internet >>>> users, we believe that consumer and public interest groups >>>>should have a >>>> strong representative voice in the GNSO policymaking >>>>environment. We applaud >>> > the organizers' efforts to recruit additional organizations, >>>including the >>>> Greek consumer group EKPIZO, and to obtain formal commitments >>>>from those who >>>> have already expressed interest. Consumers' constituency >>>>members come from >>>> Canada, Belgium, Greece, Slovenia and Australia and we believe this >>>> represents a small, but good start in obtaining broad geographic >>> > representation. We encourage the board to approve the >>>constituency so that >>>> its organizers can recruit new members from a solid foundation. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >>>> >Sent: Jan 27, 2010 11:25 AM >>>> >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> >>> > >Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> >>> > >Subject: Fwd: Re: [ALAC] Policy Advice Schedule - New Constituency >>>> Petition and Charter >>>> > >>>> >Beau, another blank message from you! Alan >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> >>>> >>To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> >>>> >>CC: At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Staff >>>> >> <staff@atlarge.icann.org> >>>> >>Sender: "alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org" >>>> >> <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>> >>Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:01:44 -0500 >>>> >>Subject: Re: [ALAC] Policy Advice Schedule - New >>>>Constituency Petition >>>> and >>>> >> Charter >>>> >>Thread-Topic: [ALAC] Policy Advice Schedule - New >>>>Constituency Petition >>>> and >>>> >> Charter >>>> >>Thread-Index: AcqfYc8nYelHhGIjRrOQg2guOvMrAQ== >>>> >>Reply-To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> >>>> >>Accept-Language: en-US >>>> >>domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; >>>> >> d=earthlink.net; >>>> >> >>>> b=kMEESj+wjiJbM74k7z+Z9++uOHq1ejYLLrPKWO/oeKAh+ZBEIAkK/ 8VMGNs0ALjx; >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Cc:Mime- Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Content-Type:X-ELNK- Trace:X-Originating-IP; >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>_______________________________________________ >>>> >>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 >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr >>>(CLO) >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 Allmend http://blog.allmend.ch -
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
participants (2)
-
Beau Brendler -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr