Here's some more haranguing, including a public posting by the former chairman of the NCUC, Milton Mueller, which details his perceptions of my failings in the job of NCUC liaison. And we wonder why we are having trouble getting volunteers? -----Original Message-----

From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Sent: Aug 23, 2009 4:04 PM To: 'Beau Brendler' <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Subject: RE: [Ncu-exec] Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison

OK, Beau, Once again you indicate that you are not interested in the charter issue, only in your little personal disputes. And if you think an allegedly insulting email qualifies for an Ombudsman complaint, and staff actions to manipulate the entire GNSO representational strucure don't, then I can write off your judgment pretty thoroughly anyway. See ya!

Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org

...

-----Original Message----- From: Beau Brendler [mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 12:01 PM To: Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [Ncu-exec] Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison

Not interested, thanks. Your chairman acted unacceptably and I'm pursuing recourse via the ombudsman and other means, and will be making the whole exchange public to the ALAC. I have nthong more to say to you or Robin, and if I hear any more allusions to some sort of alleged collusion with staff, or any other baseless attempt to smear my personal reputation, there will be consequences.

Sent from my iPhone

On 22/08/2009, at 9:39 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

...

OK looks like Robin is as pissed at you as you are at her. If you can move beyond that (nothing worse than the kind of abuse we are routinely subjected to by staff and ALAC), understand that the issue is THE NCSG CHARTER, and once again I don't see any effort to address the points I made about that below. If this disagreement is about you and your personal constituency I am not interested. If it's about the best way to organize the NCSG I remain wiling to talk any time.

________________________________________ From: Beau Brendler [beaubrendler@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:49 PM To: Milton L Mueller; 'Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion' Cc: Avri Doria Subject: RE: [Ncu-exec] Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison

Catch up on your e-mail. I don't see anything ambiguous about the e- mail from Robin I pasted right beneath this one.

That the chairman of the NCUC, or soon to be former NCUC, or whatever it is, chooses these words is troubling:

"You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look forward to your continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared to debunk it every time."

Are you people nuts? Would you appreciate, as a volunteer, being told that? This statement was sent to several mailing lists without my consent. Legally speaking, I don't take it lightly at all. Misinformation campaign? Your chairman asked me why I resigned.

On a personal, human level: Would it encourage you to read any more? Or see your point of view?

Maybe this sort of behavior is prompting some of the "demonization" you refer to below.

Yeah, Milton. Just tell everyone it was about non-performance.

-----Original Message----- From: Robin Gross Sent: Aug 21, 2009 4:11 PM To: Beau Brendler Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison

Just for the record:

- Beau, you have NEVER voiced these concerns to ANYONE within the EC at least (and possibly in the entire constituency) prior to this resigation.

- Beau, you have NEVER made any attempt to engage NCUC on ANY discussion on your proposed Consumer Constituency (although you did insist in May-June that NCUC travel to Yonkers at great inconvenience to discuss with you, and when we agreed, you dropped contact and cancelled the meeting unexpectedly).

- Beau, you have NEVER - at least for the last year attended Constituency Day at ICANN meetings OR posted ANYTHING to the listserv OR made ANY public effort to "enlighten" the so-called dominant NCUC group on ANY of the concerns you now have about our "single issue" (although you mention several "single issues" not just one so we aren't sure what our single is for you).

You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look forward to your continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared to debunk it every time.

Thank you, Robin

-----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Aug 21, 2009 6:27 PM To: 'Beau Brendler' , "'Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion'" Cc: Avri Doria Subject: RE: [Ncu-exec] Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison

Beau,

________________________________ From: Beau Brendler [mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net]

I sent a resignation letter to Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Robin Gross and no one else. It did not go into detail. Robin chose to make that letter public without my permission, which is a violation of my privacy, not to mention bad etiquette.

Robin's request to you contained the NCUC Exec Committee email address in the header. Your email did not ask that it not be forwarded or say that it was private. This is still a relatively professional environment, and both ALAC and NCUC members have a reasonable expectation to know what is going on and why.

She asked for an explanation. I gave it. And I got a personal attack in response that didn't deal with a single issue I raised

There is absolutely nothing personal in my response. And my response dealt with all the issues you raised, to the best of my ability

Then I got a response accusing me of engaging in some sort of disinformation campaign in collusion with Denise Michel.

Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about here.

I told you what I thought of that, and now I get some sort of attempt at smoothing things over that quickly degenerates into A PROFESSORIAL LECTURE WITH LOTS OF CAPS.

Huh?

Just who the hell do you think you are? Why would anyone want to volunteer their time to become involved with you?

Lots of people are currently getting involved with us; many have in the past. It takes a long time to build a constituency with self- generated resources, and frankly you ought to show more respect for that if you intend to do it. I am really tired of this demonization of NCUC, which seems to be occurring precisely because it is successful.

As for the consumer constituency, which deserves defending, here's at my part in it: When I was employed by Consumers Union, I started it. So Consumers Union was a part of it, and I got signoff on it from our Washington policy office. It seemed like a good thing to do.

Yes, but....once again, you fail to address the structural issue about the role of constituencies in the NCSG. This is what the controversy is about, Beau. You are just thinking about your own place and not about the overall structure of the NCSG and what works best for all groups. That is the reason there has been a fatal disconnect between us.

I have left CU, as has the person who signed off on it, and trying to get CU to be a part of it again won't happen, because they are focusing on health care, not telecommunications. There are consumer organizations who have joined it, from Slovenia and Belgium and Canada.

There are just as many consumer organizations currently in NCUC. So why do three organizations warrant a new constituency and a claim to an equal share of all Council seats and Executive committee seats? This is the issue, Beau. Why did you join forces with those attempting to fragment and divide the NCSG and never give our charter proposal the time of day? Why did you never offer to make amendments to it that would make it acceptable? That's the only beef I have with you and Cheryl.

What do you think of the work of Knujon, whom I helped get involved in ICANN?

Knujon is a commercial brand protection firm, a hired gun for corporations. Have you looked at their web site? Do you know what they do? They get involved in ICANN (and the RIRs) to promote their business. They apply for consulting contracts with ICANN. They made fools of themselves at the last RIPE meeting by claiming, among other things, that people who use their own language scripts in Whois records (e.g., Korean, Japanese) ought to be forced to use English because otherwise Knujon can't read their Whois records. A bit parochial, wouldn't you say?

Or ArtistsAgainst419? Or the work of Jart Armin? Have you reached out to them?

No, I haven't. They seem fine. And I could list 20 individuals that I have drawn in that you haven't reached out to. What exactly is your point? If these people want to join a new NCSG and form a "security" constituency it's fine with me and everyone else. The issue is the charter.

Let's remain focused on the only important issue: the debate we are having right now pertains to the structure of the NCSG and whether new players will join an integrated SG in which everyone works together to make collective decisions, or divide themselves into segregated silos and then fight over the allocation of Council seats and EC decisions. We favor the former. So does the vast majority of CS groups. Stop pretending these are all zombies invoked by the "NCUC Power Structure" and get serious about that issue. Then we can have a reasonable dialogue. Why is the existence of a consumer constituency threatening to you? You should be welcoming it.

No constituency is threatening to us if it is formed under the right charter. All constituencies are threatening to _each other_ if they form under the SIC-imposed charter. That is the point we have been making - and you have been missing - for nearly a year now.

You should be seeking alliance with these people, not singling them out for ridicule. One of them, Breda Kutin of the Slovenian consumer organization, is a colleague of mine, and knows more about consumer advocacy than me or you (well, not you, of course). Find a reasonable way to reach out to these people, Milton, and Mary, and Brendan, and Robin. Don't insult them or call their personal ethics into question when they disagree with you. Your credibility is at stake otherwise.

I have never even heard of these people so I am surprised to learn that I am insulting them, ridiculing them and calling their personal ethics into question. Care to retract?

You well know, I didn't "demand" the NCUC meet in Yonkers.

Who said you did? Not me.

Third, I did spend a lot of time with you, Milton, and Brendan Kuerbis (bought him lunch in Mexico, in fact, with my at-large perdiem) and Mary, and other people in your group.

I spent a lot of time talking to you and truly regret the breakdown here. When we spoke you always seemed reasonable and open to discussion. I haven't changed. But clearly, things are going on in the background that are making you hostile to us. And frankly, no, you didn't do much as liaison. I understand what a frigging time sink this stuff is, so I don't hold that against you, esp after losing your job.

-----Original Message-----

From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Sent: Aug 25, 2009 9:42 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN

Maybe it's time for the ALAC to read this exchange that resulted when I resigned from the NCUC liaison position on Friday, in part over just this sort of behavior, which has been going on since the start of the Sydney meeting. This exchange was posted to a variety of lists without my initial consent, so I am violating no one's privacy by posting it here. I note, in particular, the following quote:

"You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look forward to your continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared to debunk it every time."

--------------------------- From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> To: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com>, ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" <ncu-exec@ipjustice.org>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison Date: Aug 21, 2009 4:13 PM

Robin...please stop. You're making a fool of yourself.

-----Original Message----- From: Robin Gross Sent: Aug 21, 2009 4:11 PM To: Beau Brendler Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison

Just for the record:

- Beau, you have NEVER voiced these concerns to ANYONE within the EC at least (and possibly in the entire constituency) prior to this resigation.

- Beau, you have NEVER made any attempt to engage NCUC on ANY discussion on your proposed Consumer Constituency (although you did insist in May-June that NCUC travel to Yonkers at great inconvenience to discuss with you, and when we agreed, you dropped contact and cancelled the meeting unexpectedly).

- Beau, you have NEVER - at least for the last year attended Constituency Day at ICANN meetings OR posted ANYTHING to the listserv OR made ANY public effort to "enlighten" the so-called dominant NCUC group on ANY of the concerns you now have about our "single issue" (although you mention several "single issues" not just one so we aren't sure what our single is for you).

You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look forward to your continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared to debunk it every time.

Thank you, Robin

On Aug 21, 2009, at 12:45 PM, Beau Brendler wrote:

...

Robin:

You make my points well.

Thanks,

Beau Brendler

-----Original Message----- From: Robin Gross Sent: Aug 21, 2009 3:20 PM To: Beau Brendler Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison

Beau,

Any time you would like to have substantive discussions on issues, you are welcome to participate. But the reality is, you have never once engaged with us on a substantive discussion as long as I have been involved in ICANN, despite our requests.

You are free to engage in revisionist history now if you like, but those of us who have tried to engage you in substantive discussions along the way know a different story very well.

Regards, Robin

On Aug 21, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Beau Brendler wrote:

...

Sure. I'm concerned with the way some vocal members of the NCUC are trying to represent themselves as being a unified voice of "civil society" (they aren't), and that "civil society" is in complete agreement with the NCUC on every point ("civil society" doesn't agree with itself on a whole range of things). There are a number of people in ALAC who feel alienated by this approach, and it's counterproductive to what's supposed to be going on -- which is policy work, not internal politics and power-grabbing. The NCUC, and ALAC, for that matter, have spent far too much time over the past year babbling about the NCSG charter when they should have been working on policy. Also, in my opinion, the NCUC is basically a one-issue constituency dominated by privacy rights and free speech voices. Those are incredibly important issues, but they are not the only ones. There are a number of members of the at-large (and the general public -- see http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/09/to-some-its-the.html) who believe, for instance, that WHOIS is a valuable tool for consumer recourse from fraud and abuse. I don't think you'd find a single member of at-large who "opposes" free speech or privacy rights, but you would find some who believe there should be a balanced or nuanced approach, especially in places like the United States, where consumers don't share the same protections they do in, say, Europe. Back a couple of years ago when I was trying to recruit consumer groups to join the ALAC (and to the NCUC, for that matter), I took the trouble to ask a couple of privacy rights organizations I knew, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and the World Privacy Forum, what they thought about the WHOIS issue. I was surprised at the nuanced response, which I circulated (with permission) to a couple of the ongoing WHOIS study groups at the time. Their outlook may have changed by now, I don't know and haven't asked. Have they joined the NCUC's one unified voice of civil society and consumers etc.? I haven't checked. And I also think that what some vocal members of the NCUC have been saying about the consumer constituency is appalling -- certainly counterproductive and a missed opportunity. Their actions have convinced me that the NCUC is interested solely -- at the moment, anyway, until various matters are decided -- in consolidating its power, not building coalitions or working within the system to improve Internet policy or ICANN policy on behalf of users. Ironically, I used to work for a consumer organization (http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/, the site, eight years' worth of work, is still up) that was very hesitant to join any sort of coalition, for these sorts of reasons. When I was an employee of that organization, I often felt I had to hold back from voicing certain opinions or aligning myself with certain groups within the ICANN community. And I took a fair amount of browbeating from at least one member of the NCUC for that, though mercifully, I don't seem to be getting those e-mails anymore. Maybe that's because I'm no longer a marquee member of "civil society," and more of an average Joe consumer.

Now, looking at the whole ICANN constituency and community enterprise as a whole, today, as a sort of free man, I can say: If I were to come in cold, and try to make up my mind, I would want no part of the NCUC.

And I don't now, because I just don't like the way a number of members of your group are doing business. And that's why I'm resigning.

Beau Brendler

-----Original Message----- From: Robin Gross Sent: Aug 21, 2009 2:19 PM To: Beau Brendler Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison

Beau,

Thanks for letting us know. Can you say why you are resigning? Thank you.

Best, Robin

On Aug 21, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Beau Brendler wrote:

...

Cheryl, Robin:

Please consider this my immediate resignation from the ALAC liaison position to the NCUC. I leave it to Cheryl to inform the ALAC of my decision at a particularly opportune time, as my term is up by the next ICANN meeting. However, my decision has nothing to do with timing.

Regards,

Beau Brendler

-----Original Message-----

...

From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Aug 25, 2009 6:52 AM To: ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC] Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN

A document entitled "Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN" has been distributed very widely in the last week or so. An example is http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/21/top-ten-myths-about-civil-society-part.... According to that post, the documents originates with the NCUC.

Myth 6 is about the ALAC and I believe is both inaccurate and misleading. It reads:

----------------- Myth 6

"ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society drafted charter." False. One ALAC leader said that she prefers the staff drafted charter. ICANN staff ran away with this comment and falsely told the ICANN Board of Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted charter. In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC said that many members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that "the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction." -----------------

This implies that many ALAC members supported the NCUC proposal (verbatim quote of above) and it implies that the ALAC said that the de-linking of seats was a good thing.

In fact, the statement that they were quoting (http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html) said:

"Some members feel that although there are some problems with the proposal, it generally addresses their concerns, and in particular, the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction. Problems notwithstanding, the proposal should receive Board approval."

"Some" is not "Many" and the original statement made it clear that the statement about de-linking was made by these "some members" and not the ALAC in general.

I do not know what we can do to counter this widely distributed inaccuracy, but I do not believe that we can say nothing.

Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac