Re: [EURO-Discuss] Comment on Stakeholder Charters by Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2007-2009
Hi, As a member of both the NCUC and Euralo/ALAC environments, I must say I was a little puzzled by this statement in the public comment period on the NCSG charter. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00067.html The statement begins by noting that "This is not a formal or ratified statement or comment per se but rather a synopsis of those previously provided in various fora to date" (lots of writing like that, a bit hard to read, but whatever...). I don't recall the previous discussions on Euralo or other ALAC-related lists that are being synopsized in which people endorsed a narrowly constituency-based model for the NCSG, which will result in fragmentation, politicization, and ineffectiveness. To the contrary, my recollection, which is refreshed by Cheryl's comment, is that ALAC people actually rejected the CP80 proposal, which embodied such a model. And yet the new SIC/staff version embodies pretty much the same model, and now it is apparently ok and to be supported! I'm sure the SIC/staff will be pleased to have at least one reliable expression of support for the dysfunctional model that has been rejected by hundreds of individuals and organizations over two public comment periods. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder- charters and http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters. And of course, everyone's entitled to their own opinion and bits of self- aggrandizing historical revisionism. What I'm unable to figure out is whether that opinion is widely shared among the people whose views purportedly are being synopsized, and when and where this support was expressed. Did I just miss the memo? Can anyone explain? Would be really interested to hear from Adam, Patrick, Sebastian and others who are more well attuned to the internal dynamics of ALAC discourse and decision making.... Thanks, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
Dear Bill: You will find all statements of the ALAC on this subject (as well as all other matters where statements have been made) on http://www.atlarge.icann.org under correspondence. William Drake wrote:
Hi,
As a member of both the NCUC and Euralo/ALAC environments, I must say I was a little puzzled by this statement in the public comment period on the NCSG charter. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00067.html
The statement begins by noting that "This is not a formal or ratified statement or comment per se but rather a synopsis of those previously provided in various fora to date" (lots of writing like that, a bit hard to read, but whatever...). I don't recall the previous discussions on Euralo or other ALAC-related lists that are being synopsized in which people endorsed a narrowly constituency-based model for the NCSG, which will result in fragmentation, politicization, and ineffectiveness. To the contrary, my recollection, which is refreshed by Cheryl's comment, is that ALAC people actually rejected the CP80 proposal, which embodied such a model. And yet the new SIC/staff version embodies pretty much the same model, and now it is apparently ok and to be supported!
I'm sure the SIC/staff will be pleased to have at least one reliable expression of support for the dysfunctional model that has been rejected by hundreds of individuals and organizations over two public comment periods. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters and http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters. And of course, everyone's entitled to their own opinion and bits of self-aggrandizing historical revisionism. What I'm unable to figure out is whether that opinion is widely shared among the people whose views purportedly are being synopsized, and when and where this support was expressed. Did I just miss the memo? Can anyone explain?
Would be really interested to hear from Adam, Patrick, Sebastian and others who are more well attuned to the internal dynamics of ALAC discourse and decision making....
Thanks,
Bill
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
At 7:50 PM +0200 7/24/09, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Dear Bill:
You will find all statements of the ALAC on this subject (as well as all other matters where statements have been made) on http://www.atlarge.icann.org under correspondence.
Nick, thanks. I notice ALAC's most recent consensus statement on the topic is not in the correspondence list, please see <http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html> I am concerned that the staff recommendation for the new NCSG charter is very similar to that proposed by Cheryl Preston and explicitly rejected by ALAC this 16 April 2009 contribution. And note the ALAC statement of 14 August 2008, says, among other things: " We also may differ from some of the current constituencies on how the GNSO should evolve after the new structure is implemented. As noted in the BGC report, the process for forming new constituencies has been in the By-Laws as long as the GNSO has existed. But it has never happened, presumably due to the (real or perceived) heavy burden of ³self-forming² and then ongoing management. Within the new structure, it may be even more difficult, due to a potential for the existing constituencies to believe that they can represent all viewpoints, thus eliminating the need for new constituencies." And goes on to make comments about how constituencies can be created without the barriers we've seen in the past. However, the staff recommendation for the new NCSG charter seems to provide more hurdles, not less. The top down model didn't work, ALAC statement of a year ago recognizes this and seems to reject it. The NCUC proposal is of course much more user-friendly, allows for the easy creation of constituencies that have equal rights in policy development. So answering Bill's question, there has been no discussion of the NCSG charter since our agreed statement of 16 April this year. Speaking for myself, I do not support the top-down NCSG charter proposal as presented by staff. Am very concerned it will exclude individuals, forming new constituencies will be difficult, and is obviously an unfair burden on non-commercial users compared to the charter proposed for the commercial users house: these double standards are very worrying. Sorry for the quick note. Late here, and I've been travelling and currently enjoying a nice dose of jet lag! Best, Adam
William Drake wrote:
Hi,
As a member of both the NCUC and Euralo/ALAC environments, I must say I was a little puzzled by this statement in the public comment period on the NCSG charter. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00067.html
The statement begins by noting that "This is not a formal or ratified statement or comment per se but rather a synopsis of those previously provided in various fora to date" (lots of writing like that, a bit hard to read, but whatever...). I don't recall the previous discussions on Euralo or other ALAC-related lists that are being synopsized in which people endorsed a narrowly constituency-based model for the NCSG, which will result in fragmentation, politicization, and ineffectiveness. To the contrary, my recollection, which is refreshed by Cheryl's comment, is that ALAC people actually rejected the CP80 proposal, which embodied such a model. And yet the new SIC/staff version embodies pretty much the same model, and now it is apparently ok and to be supported!
I'm sure the SIC/staff will be pleased to have at least one reliable expression of support for the dysfunctional model that has been rejected by hundreds of individuals and organizations over two public comment periods. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters and http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters. And of course, everyone's entitled to their own opinion and bits of self-aggrandizing historical revisionism. What I'm unable to figure out is whether that opinion is widely shared among the people whose views purportedly are being synopsized, and when and where this support was expressed. Did I just miss the memo? Can anyone explain?
Would be really interested to hear from Adam, Patrick, Sebastian and others who are more well attuned to the internal dynamics of ALAC discourse and decision making....
Thanks,
Bill
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
--
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart
Director for At-Large
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83
USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637
Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468
email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org
Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart
Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
participants (3)
-
Adam Peake -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
William Drake