Adam, Re: Any comments on the new draft of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group petition document? The charter for the NCSG is an abomination that denies individual constituencies the right to elect their own counselors and to vote their own conscience. Under Milton's proposal, the NCSG necessarily votes as a block. This does not serve the interest of many that would otherwise consider joining this "house". Let me remind you that in the wake of the Registerfly situation, the NCUC did absolutely nothing to protect registrant rights -- they submitted no comments whatsoever during the 18-month long RAA discussions. Why should the opinions of those that care about registrant concerns be subdued by a majority whose sole interest currently lies in privacy and freedom of expression to the exclusion of all else? When the notion of a "House" was conceived, the last thing that anyone expected was a home exclusively for Milton's Merry Men.
Although I do not support Danny's choice of rhetoric, I agree with the sentiment. The way to funnel the views (and votes) of multiple constituencies into six council voices and votes is indeed not easy. But I feel that the solution chosen in this charter, although easy to implement, is very far from a good one. If we want to attract diverse views and groups into this new Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, we must provide a mechanism for them to participate in deliberations and votes of the GNSO Council. Alan At 21/11/2008 12:04 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Adam,
Re: Any comments on the new draft of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group petition document?
The charter for the NCSG is an abomination that denies individual constituencies the right to elect their own counselors and to vote their own conscience. Under Milton's proposal, the NCSG necessarily votes as a block.
This does not serve the interest of many that would otherwise consider joining this "house". Let me remind you that in the wake of the Registerfly situation, the NCUC did absolutely nothing to protect registrant rights -- they submitted no comments whatsoever during the 18-month long RAA discussions.
Why should the opinions of those that care about registrant concerns be subdued by a majority whose sole interest currently lies in privacy and freedom of expression to the exclusion of all else?
When the notion of a "House" was conceived, the last thing that anyone expected was a home exclusively for Milton's Merry Men.
Then now would be a good time to draft an amendment, or additional petition. The GNSO has always been open to the possibility of new constituencies <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4> and no one bothered to try and create an individual users constituency. So what makes you think it's possible to organize such a group now? Is the GA basis for optimism <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/>? Adam At 4:19 PM -0500 11/21/08, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Although I do not support Danny's choice of rhetoric, I agree with the sentiment.
The way to funnel the views (and votes) of multiple constituencies into six council voices and votes is indeed not easy. But I feel that the solution chosen in this charter, although easy to implement, is very far from a good one.
If we want to attract diverse views and groups into this new Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, we must provide a mechanism for them to participate in deliberations and votes of the GNSO Council.
Alan
At 21/11/2008 12:04 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Adam,
Re: Any comments on the new draft of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group petition document?
The charter for the NCSG is an abomination that denies individual constituencies the right to elect their own counselors and to vote their own conscience. Under Milton's proposal, the NCSG necessarily votes as a block.
This does not serve the interest of many that would otherwise consider joining this "house". Let me remind you that in the wake of the Registerfly situation, the NCUC did absolutely nothing to protect registrant rights -- they submitted no comments whatsoever during the 18-month long RAA discussions.
Why should the opinions of those that care about registrant concerns be subdued by a majority whose sole interest currently lies in privacy and freedom of expression to the exclusion of all else?
When the notion of a "House" was conceived, the last thing that anyone expected was a home exclusively for Milton's Merry Men.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I think that this is one thing that the BGC proposal got right. New constituencies (in the traditional context, not those in the NCSG charter) will only come into being if ICANN puts significant effort into helping to create them and to ongoing support. These words were in the BGC proposal, although I have not seen much substance behind them yet. But with some support, there are groups out there who will care. Perhaps more so in the other SG, but in the NCSG as well (or so I believe). Alan At 22/11/2008 02:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
Then now would be a good time to draft an amendment, or additional petition.
The GNSO has always been open to the possibility of new constituencies <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4> and no one bothered to try and create an individual users constituency. So what makes you think it's possible to organize such a group now? Is the GA basis for optimism <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/>?
Adam
At 4:19 PM -0500 11/21/08, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Although I do not support Danny's choice of rhetoric, I agree with the sentiment.
The way to funnel the views (and votes) of multiple constituencies into six council voices and votes is indeed not easy. But I feel that the solution chosen in this charter, although easy to implement, is very far from a good one.
If we want to attract diverse views and groups into this new Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, we must provide a mechanism for them to participate in deliberations and votes of the GNSO Council.
Alan
At 21/11/2008 12:04 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Adam,
Re: Any comments on the new draft of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group petition document?
The charter for the NCSG is an abomination that denies individual constituencies the right to elect their own counselors and to vote their own conscience. Under Milton's proposal, the NCSG necessarily votes as a block.
This does not serve the interest of many that would otherwise consider joining this "house". Let me remind you that in the wake of the Registerfly situation, the NCUC did absolutely nothing to protect registrant rights -- they submitted no comments whatsoever during the 18-month long RAA discussions.
Why should the opinions of those that care about registrant concerns be subdued by a majority whose sole interest currently lies in privacy and freedom of expression to the exclusion of all else?
When the notion of a "House" was conceived, the last thing that anyone expected was a home exclusively for Milton's Merry Men.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Adam:
The GNSO has always been open to the possibility of new constituencies <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4> and no one bothered to try and create an individual users constituency. So what makes you think it's possible to organize such a group now?
The problem before was that the creation of a new constituency was altering the voting balance of the whole GNSO, so all existing constituencies had good reasons for blocking new entrants (except if a constituency was sure that the new one could be a sort of permanent ally, or a clone of itself). What the BGC WG tried to do, was to build a structure where this opposition was not inherent in the system. With the stakeholder groups, the only potentially opposed constituencies to a new entrant because of "power" reasons are the ones in the same stakeholder group (incidentally, that also explains why the NCUC proposal is crafted in that way, and not in a way to favour the creation of a new constituency). With the Stakeholder-Group-based structure, it is (in principle) possible to have groups that are homogeneous stakeholders, like academia and research, user protection organizations, individual (non-commercial) users, etc. It takes time and effort, but it is possible.
Is the GA basis for optimism <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/>?
This is the latest weekly report on GA mailing activities: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg02222.html. The message from Narten is the weekly summary, the 6 messages from Glen are the weekly ICANN announcements, you can see what else remains after these routine/admin emails. Cheers, Roberto
participants (4)
-
Adam Peake -
Alan Greenberg -
Danny Younger -
Roberto Gaetano