Milton Mueller blasts the proposed Consumer Constituency
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/9/22/4329523.html Consumer Fraud Two people in ALAC are pushing to create a Consumer constituency within the new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group. While superficially this may seem like a good idea, nothing in ICANN is simple or straightforward. The Board should not recognize a Consumer Constituency now. There are four reasons why the Board must wait until next year before even considering it. 1. The proposed consumer constituency is empty. It has no demonstrable support or official participation from any major consumer organization. When a petition to form it was filed in February, the proposer, Beau Brendler, claimed the support of Consumers Union, Consumers International, Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, and the Australian Consumers Consumer Action Network. But none of these groups filed comments in favor of the petition. And none of them are members now. In fact no consumer organizations filed supporting comments! The only public comment that supported the petition was a business group, the trademark lobbyist association AIM. The proposal for a Consumer Constituency is basically a two person show. Its only backers are Beau Brendler and Cheryl Langdon-Orr, both of whom were appointed (not elected) to ALAC and would like to extend ALAC's remit into the GNSO. Mr. Brendler was employed by the Consumers Union in the U.S. for a while, but the CU was so uninterested in his involvement in ICANN that it laid him off this summer. Mr. Brendler currently does not speak for any consumer organization.. Langdon-Orr claims to speak for an ACCAN – but the ACCAN has nothing about this on its web site and did not file comments in favor of the petition. The simple fact is that this constituency has nothing in it. 2. The move divides and fragments consumer advocacy within ICANN. At this time, there are more active consumer protection advocates in the existing Noncommercial Users Constituency than there are in this proposed new constituency. Consumer advocacy groups like Public Citizen, Free Press and EPIC are currently members of NCUC; moreover, these groups are members of Consumers International and Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue and further linked to them via the OECD civil society advisory council. All of them would be happy to work with new consumer organizations in the flexible, integrated Stakeholder Group structure proposed by the NCUC. But a new constituency under the current charter would create a separate organization, run by Brendler, and so fragment the consumer organizations involved in ICANN. (Fragmentation and division is really the object of this proposal, as explained below.) The charter imposed on the Noncommercial stakeholders by ICANN means that creating a new constituency in the GNSO is a zero-sum game: it takes representation away from one group to and gives it to another. So if this “consumer constituency” is created it means that all existing consumer organizations involved in NCUC get less influence. 3. The most serious problem with this proposal is that it makes it impossible to come to a consensual agreement on the future Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) charter. If a new constituency is created, it will be created under the terms and conditions of an interim, temporary charter. That charter was imposed on noncommercial stakeholders and is based on a model of fragmenting civil society into separate constituencies which must always fight with each other over how votes are apportioned. That model was decisively rejected by civil society and constitutes a totally unacceptable way to achieve the goals of the GNSO reforms. Several Board members have questioned it and insisted that it be reviewed after a year. The disagreement over the charter has been recognized by the Board and needs to be negotiated and resolved consensually. But if a new constituency is created now, it would have the effect of making the illegitimate charter a fait accompli, by locking it into place. That is why Brendler and Langdon-Orr are trying to push the Board into recognizing this fake constituency now, before the issue of the charter is settled. That way they won’t have to negotiate in good faith regarding the If their actions have to obtain support and consensus from the broader noncommercial community, they know they will be dead in the water. 4. It makes no sense to rigidly separate “consumer” issues from other noncommercial concerns. Consumer advocacy in communications policy often revolves around economic issues, such as prices, fraud, unfair contracts and business practices – but those concerns are often closely linked to concerns about privacy and freedom of expression. The constituency model forces noncommercial groups into rigidly separate boxes where they discuss issues in isolation from the other perspectives. It is a model that has only one aim: to divide and conquer. That explains why the trademark groups, who are resentful over the redistribution of votes on the GNSO Council, are supporting this Consumer constituency and none of the noncommercial groups are. As we speak, ICANN staff and Langdon-Orr are orchestrating a vote by the ALAC to support the creation of a consumer constituency. She is not telling the At Large members that she is a very interested party in this decision. She is hoping that they will fall prey to the simplistic appeal of being pro-consumer. It is ironic, but very revealing of ICANN politics, that members of ICANN’s policy staff are supporting the creation of a Consumer Constituency, a proposal which did not receive one supportive comment from any consumer organization in the world, but are fighting tooth and nail to implement a NCSG charter that nearly 100 noncommercial organizations opposed. Let’s hope that the Board and new CEO can see through this ploy and respect the request of the noncommercial constituency to wait until the charter issue is resolved before forming any new entities.
Danny Younger wrote:
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/9/22/4329523.html
Yes, Danny, by all means let's repeat an article so full of invective, inaccuracies and tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories that it has the potential to poison the relationship between ALAC and NCUC for quite a long time. Allow me to remind this list that, at our last regular NARALO meeting last week, we achieved a consensus to actively oppose the NCUC request to stall new constituencies. I recall zero dissent in achieving that consensus. I also do not recall any pressure from Cheryl or Beau to do this. I am personally disgusted by the devolution of the NCUC complaint into petty, nasty attacks on Beau and Cheryl. I am distressed by go-for-broke tactics that appear to have dispensed with any pretence of rational debate, resorting to personalizing and vilifying the supporters of what is, at its core, simply a strong difference in approach. Ironically, I see the diatribe having the opposite effect of what was intended. A casual reader -- let's say an ICANN Board member -- could easily infer that, given the political tactics demonstrated in Milton's letter, that NCUC is not competent to fully represent the public interest within GNSO. Such sentiment, in the appropriate hands, could easily accelerate the move to dilute NCUC's position by welcoming new constituencies and the staff charter. I will not be contributing any further to this thread, and I urge NARALO to avoid giving this issue a life of its own. We have too many other issues which are far worthier of our time. - Evan
Hi Evan, I am personally offended by Mueller's attacks on Beau and Cheryl, although not surprised. I also would caution against trying to censor information just because one does not it or the source. Mueller may have gone overboard with his statements, but he is still someone other people respect and like. He is not simply a "tinfoil-hat" guy, that should be dismissed. It is better to know what one is dealing with than not. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," Sun Tzu, Art of War. His hidden objective is to divide, don't let him. His open objective is destroy ICANN, don't help him. And yes, there are more important things to do. --bob On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:39:28 -0400 From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Milton Mueller blasts the proposed Consumer Constituency
Danny Younger wrote:
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/9/22/4329523.html
Yes, Danny, by all means let's repeat an article so full of invective, inaccuracies and tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories that it has the potential to poison the relationship between ALAC and NCUC for quite a long time.
Allow me to remind this list that, at our last regular NARALO meeting last week, we achieved a consensus to actively oppose the NCUC request to stall new constituencies. I recall zero dissent in achieving that consensus. I also do not recall any pressure from Cheryl or Beau to do this.
I am personally disgusted by the devolution of the NCUC complaint into petty, nasty attacks on Beau and Cheryl. I am distressed by go-for-broke tactics that appear to have dispensed with any pretence of rational debate, resorting to personalizing and vilifying the supporters of what is, at its core, simply a strong difference in approach.
Ironically, I see the diatribe having the opposite effect of what was intended. A casual reader -- let's say an ICANN Board member -- could easily infer that, given the political tactics demonstrated in Milton's letter, that NCUC is not competent to fully represent the public interest within GNSO. Such sentiment, in the appropriate hands, could easily accelerate the move to dilute NCUC's position by welcoming new constituencies and the staff charter.
I will not be contributing any further to this thread, and I urge NARALO to avoid giving this issue a life of its own. We have too many other issues which are far worthier of our time.
- Evan
Bob Bruen wrote:
I also would caution against trying to censor information just because one does not it or the source.
I wasn't intending to censor. People post links to things of interest here all the time, including items that many might not agree with. I objected to Danny's reprinting of the whole thing verbatim, giving a "you must read this" air to a piece that certainly doesn't deserve that level of attention.
Mueller may have gone overboard with his statements, but he is still someone other people respect and like. He is not simply a "tinfoil-hat" guy, that should be dismissed.
Convince me. He was one of the founders of NCUC and must be credited for that. But he now comes across as a parent who perceives his child is in danger, flailing away with any tactic available -- no matter how crude or hurtful or false, oblivious of consequence -- to protect. Every time he puts finger to keyboard he discredits himself more (as witness by his followup replies to Cheryl). Trouble is ... the more he flails away, the less people will believe that the child deserves protection. In Sydney I was relatively neutral about Milton, today it seems to me he's a foil wrapper away from total nutbar. And every day that the NCUC of today fails to distance itself from his words, it is associated a little bit more with his character. At this particular point in time, the NCUC can little afford such damage to its credibility. I care about this only because I don't want to see NCUC to descend into irrelevance due to its founder's abandonment of civility. It's not in ALAC's tactical interest to have NCUC as an impotent laughing stock.
It is better to know what one is dealing with than not. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," Sun Tzu, Art of War.
May be, but I don't consider Milton my enemy. The vested interests, domainers, exploiters, phishers, censors and overzealous IP interests are (still) my enemies. Milton is a distraction, a nuisance. But not more than that. - Evan PS: Talking about censorship.... a posting I made on that thread has yet to show up on the website....
It seems to me that a "constituency for consumers" would either fall under ALAC and would strengthen us, OR if we focused on the organizations that represent them, those could either be in ALAC or NCUC (i.e. they already have a place (or choice of places) if they intend to be active). Is the proposal to establish a third body entirely? if so, that does seem to water things down for all involved, and risks further confusing potential participants and even setting us further against each other. I'm not averse to protecting our rights as consumers, but I think we ought to start from a wider frame than consumption. We the people are more integral than our consuming roles. Regards, MM On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Bob Bruen wrote:
I also would caution against trying to censor information just because one does not it or the source.
I wasn't intending to censor. People post links to things of interest here all the time, including items that many might not agree with. I objected to Danny's reprinting of the whole thing verbatim, giving a "you must read this" air to a piece that certainly doesn't deserve that level of attention.
Mueller may have gone overboard with his statements, but he is still someone other people respect and like. He is not simply a "tinfoil-hat" guy, that should be dismissed.
Convince me. He was one of the founders of NCUC and must be credited for that. But he now comes across as a parent who perceives his child is in danger, flailing away with any tactic available -- no matter how crude or hurtful or false, oblivious of consequence -- to protect. Every time he puts finger to keyboard he discredits himself more (as witness by his followup replies to Cheryl).
Trouble is ... the more he flails away, the less people will believe that the child deserves protection. In Sydney I was relatively neutral about Milton, today it seems to me he's a foil wrapper away from total nutbar. And every day that the NCUC of today fails to distance itself from his words, it is associated a little bit more with his character. At this particular point in time, the NCUC can little afford such damage to its credibility.
I care about this only because I don't want to see NCUC to descend into irrelevance due to its founder's abandonment of civility. It's not in ALAC's tactical interest to have NCUC as an impotent laughing stock.
It is better to know what one is dealing with than not. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," Sun Tzu, Art of War.
May be, but I don't consider Milton my enemy. The vested interests, domainers, exploiters, phishers, censors and overzealous IP interests are (still) my enemies. Milton is a distraction, a nuisance. But not more than that.
- Evan
PS: Talking about censorship.... a posting I made on that thread has yet to show up on the website....
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Micheal, I agree that we are more than consumers. It's good to have a big frame for the overall picture. But at the end of the day ICANN is a pyramid of contracts. Whatever principals we have need to shoehorn into that form. The strongest rights/protections/safeguards that are possible for individual users in the ICANN context are probably "consumer" based. It's the strongest ground on the island of ICANN. Personally, I think that shuffling the seats among various official ICANN bodies is far less important than the amount of chatter it gets. The end game is operationalizing user rights. That will happen through a significant amount of individuals spending a significant amount of time beating down the path from terrific principals to click wrap user agreements and the like. It probably doesn't matter if those individuals come from one body, twelve bodies, the NCUC, the ALAC or the Ladies Auxilliary Shoe Army. Milton is a crotchedy codger, but also a smart bloke that put his heart into ICANN. Anyone who spends enough time spinning their own wheels around the machinations of ICANN is likely to wind up going off the rails. An unnecessary, self-inflicted digression. On Sep 24, 2009, at 9:09 AM, Michael Maranda wrote:
It seems to me that a "constituency for consumers" would either fall under ALAC and would strengthen us, OR if we focused on the organizations that represent them, those could either be in ALAC or NCUC (i.e. they already have a place (or choice of places) if they intend to be active). Is the proposal to establish a third body entirely? if so, that does seem to water things down for all involved, and risks further confusing potential participants and even setting us further against each other.
I'm not averse to protecting our rights as consumers, but I think we ought to start from a wider frame than consumption. We the people are more integral than our consuming roles.
Regards,
MM
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Bob Bruen wrote:
I also would caution against trying to censor information just because one does not it or the source.
I wasn't intending to censor. People post links to things of interest here all the time, including items that many might not agree with. I objected to Danny's reprinting of the whole thing verbatim, giving a "you must read this" air to a piece that certainly doesn't deserve that level of attention.
Mueller may have gone overboard with his statements, but he is still someone other people respect and like. He is not simply a "tinfoil-hat" guy, that should be dismissed.
Convince me. He was one of the founders of NCUC and must be credited for that. But he now comes across as a parent who perceives his child is in danger, flailing away with any tactic available -- no matter how crude or hurtful or false, oblivious of consequence -- to protect. Every time he puts finger to keyboard he discredits himself more (as witness by his followup replies to Cheryl).
Trouble is ... the more he flails away, the less people will believe that the child deserves protection. In Sydney I was relatively neutral about Milton, today it seems to me he's a foil wrapper away from total nutbar. And every day that the NCUC of today fails to distance itself from his words, it is associated a little bit more with his character. At this particular point in time, the NCUC can little afford such damage to its credibility.
I care about this only because I don't want to see NCUC to descend into irrelevance due to its founder's abandonment of civility. It's not in ALAC's tactical interest to have NCUC as an impotent laughing stock.
It is better to know what one is dealing with than not. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," Sun Tzu, Art of War.
May be, but I don't consider Milton my enemy. The vested interests, domainers, exploiters, phishers, censors and overzealous IP interests are (still) my enemies. Milton is a distraction, a nuisance. But not more than that.
- Evan
PS: Talking about censorship.... a posting I made on that thread has yet to show up on the website....
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
The NCUC has elected Wendy Seltzer to the GNSO Council. I wish Wendy all the best in her new role.
participants (5)
-
Bob Bruen -
Danny Younger -
Dharma Dailey -
Evan Leibovitch -
Michael Maranda