There are more like these in my inbox. The most chatter I've seen on an ICANN issue... Begin forwarded message:
From: DeeDee Halleck <dhalleck@ucsd.edu> Date: July 23, 2009 7:56:46 AM GMT-04:00 To: "MADCoList" <MADCoList@list.media-democracy.net> Cc: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>, grc@maillist.peak.org, mediaresearchconf07@listserve.ssrc.org Subject: [MADCoList] Open the process for internet governance! Act Today!
Dear friends,
Please read the inclosed letter and take action TODAY-- it is the deadline.
For several years I took part in the deliberations at the World Summit on the Information Society. I wanted to see what other countries were doing in regards to community media and to help negotiate a place for public access within international media regulations and recommendations. As part of this process I learned a bit about internet governance. A civil society group was set up (agreed to by ICANN-- the official international internet organization) to come up with suggestions for democratizing internet governance. We're not talking revolution here, but a few participatory gestures, slight, but important.
To the amazement of the civil society group, these suggestions were completely ignored. ICANN continues to represent only government and commercial interests. The hope that there could be civil society participation has been rudely dashed. However, the group that worked to craft an alternative process is asking ALL THOSE WHO WORK IN NON-PROFIT MEDIA to weigh in and let ICANN know how important it is that civil society gets "a seat at the table".
PLEASE READ THIS AND SEND A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR A DEMOCRATIC INTERNET. DeeDee Halleck
Dear Dee Dee,
I am writing with an urgent request that you please send a quick email to ICANN to weigh-in regarding the imposition of the ICANN staff drafted charter for a Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG).
Without any explanation or justification, ICANN discarded the NCSG charter that had been drafted by civil society in a consensus process and submitted to ICANN by NCUC in March - and supported by more than 80 noncommercial organizations and individuals.
Instead, ICANN is attempting to impose precisely the "silo" charter model that we said would stranglehold us and render us ineffective in policy development at ICANN.
It is crucial that noncommercial organizations and individuals weigh- in right now and let ICANN know that the world is watching and expecting it to live up to its promises of bottom-up processes, accountability, and democracy.
The governance structures contained within the NCSG charter will be extremely important for determining how effective noncommercial users can be in influencing policy decisions at ICANN for years to come. So if there was ever an issue to weigh-in on, this is the issue - because it will impact every issue noncommercial users face in the future.
The ICANN Public Comment Period on the charters is open until 23 July - Thursday (end-of-business in California).
Comments on the draft charters are submitted via email to gnso-stakeholder-charters@icann.org .
Thank you for considering this urgent request. If you can find the time to send a quick email to ICANN before Thursday EOB, it could make a significant difference for noncommercial users for years to come and I would greatly appreciate it.
Please let me know if you'd like to discuss this request further. Thanks again!!
All best,
Robin
Background on Issue with links to docs, see my article: "Is ICANN Accountable to the Global Public Interest?": http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCUC-ICANN-Injustices.html
IP Justice Statement on Stakeholder Group Charter Injustices: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00012.html
Comment from Dr. Milton Mueller (Internet Governance Project): http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00001.html
Public Comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/
ICANN Info on submitting comments on stakeholder group charters: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#stakeholder
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org
SAMPLE LETTER FROM KENYA:
Dear all,
My name is Alex Gakuru, a member of the Non-Commercial Users Constituency whom endorsed the NCSG charter that had been drafted by civil society in a "bottom-up" consensus process and submitted to ICANN by NCUC in March, 2009.
Concerned by the manner in which ICANN staff have discarded our civil society draft, once again, negating sacred the bottom-up consensus principle from within ICANN. Internet users fund ICANN's operational existence to work for us. You are the duty bearers here to us - the rights holders. You owe us the obligation to listen to us and publicly reflect it on all your operations, activities and reports. Otherwise, I fear if the sacred “bottom-up” principle was discarded and i was never aware.
It is my considered view that this is a very serious governance issue that concerns my constituency members and I hope that ICANN will address it with the importance, seriousness, and the urgency that it deserves.
Sincerely,
Alex Gakuru NCUC member, Nairobi, Kenya
If you wish to unsubscribe, please send a blank message with the subject "unsubscribe" to info@media-democracy.net MADCoList | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
Dharma Dailey wrote:
There are more like these in my inbox. The most chatter I've seen on an ICANN issue...
Perhaps, but judging by your mail I'd say that the chatter is either misinformed or is making what I'd consider ... unusual ... conclusions. ICANN is one teeny tiny part of what is generally thought of as "Internet governance". It attracts plenty of attention because it has -- and generates for others -- a lot of money. But ICANN, at its core, is not charged with anything more than managing domain names. And it has a massively hard time doing *that* right. Mission creep -- whether to create new trademark treaties or judge comparative morality -- is to be resisted. Some of the elevated interest you see appears to be the result of a concerted effort by members of NCUC to increase its membership in anticipation of the changes happening to GNSO. Support for a "democratic Internet" sounds nice and squishy, but what does it really mean? And how much does such a movement expect from ICANN that is actually within ICANN's mandate to provide? Does it mean direct election of people to the ICANN Board? That approach didn't work well. But, then, arguably the current approach isn't very accountable either. So what then? The current existence of At-Large is currently ICANN's attempt to find out what the "public interest" actually is. Ans as it's matured it's been given more and more voice, leading to At-Large's directly putting people on the ICANN board. You're part of this process and so am I. What can *we* do to help advance better policy? How can *we* influence ICANN to do the right thing? Of particular interest to me is DeeDee's statement:
A civil society group was set up (agreed to by ICANN-- the official international internet organization) to come up with suggestions for democratizing internet governance. This statement seems wrong on so many levels:
- Who deemed ICANN to be "the official international internet organization"? - What exactly is this civil society group that ICANN agreed to? - What level of agreement? Was it sponsorship? Partnership? Or merely acknowledgement? - Do the people involved in this know how little ICANN's mandate includes "Internet governance"? I too participated in WSIS and I found much of it to eventually be a waste of time (see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wsis/Leibovitch.html for more). Within At-Large in ICANN I have found a real opportunity to change things, though some of that change will require time, skill and really thick skins. I would invite anyone who feels strongly about these issues to tackle them from within ICANN. At-Large needs smart and active groups and people who will help us address and confront ICANN policies -- existing and proposed -- that are against the public interest. The infrastructure already exists to do that. And we have demonstrated -- on issues of domain tasting and elsewhere -- that we can be effective in influencing policy when the will and human resources exist to do it. At-Large is far more than a "participatory gesture". So if DeeDee and others like her want to indeed make a difference, there is already a way. The NCSG mechanism is important, but there is more to the public interest than that mechanism alone. At-Large has a mandate that allows it to participate and influence all corners of ICANN, not just the GNSO portion in which the NCSG would participate. And based on current recommendations we will soon have full participation on the Board. Today's deadline will come and go, but advancing the public interest requires more than vague letter-writing campaigns asking ICANN to act outside its mandate. People who want to make a difference have clear paths to do so -- and in the process, they'll come to a better understanding of what ICANN *can* do to make the Internet better, and what it can't. - Evan
Begin forwarded message:
From: DeeDee Halleck <dhalleck@ucsd.edu> Date: July 23, 2009 7:56:46 AM GMT-04:00 To: "MADCoList" <MADCoList@list.media-democracy.net> Cc: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>, grc@maillist.peak.org, mediaresearchconf07@listserve.ssrc.org Subject: [MADCoList] Open the process for internet governance! Act Today!
Dear friends,
Please read the inclosed letter and take action TODAY-- it is the deadline.
For several years I took part in the deliberations at the World Summit on the Information Society. I wanted to see what other countries were doing in regards to community media and to help negotiate a place for public access within international media regulations and recommendations. As part of this process I learned a bit about internet governance. A civil society group was set up (agreed to by ICANN-- the official international internet organization) to come up with suggestions for democratizing internet governance. We're not talking revolution here, but a few participatory gestures, slight, but important.
To the amazement of the civil society group, these suggestions were completely ignored. ICANN continues to represent only government and commercial interests. The hope that there could be civil society participation has been rudely dashed. However, the group that worked to craft an alternative process is asking ALL THOSE WHO WORK IN NON-PROFIT MEDIA to weigh in and let ICANN know how important it is that civil society gets "a seat at the table".
PLEASE READ THIS AND SEND A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR A DEMOCRATIC INTERNET. DeeDee Halleck
Evan, I don't argue the merits of your statement regarding the role of ICANN in the internet governance ecology. And frankly, the interactions between ICANN's internal bodies are mysterious to me. I forwarded the example below for two reasons. 1) I saw people who normally don't concern themselves with ICANN raising this issue. 2) I saw multiple people who are not connected with each other raising the issue. So, for the corners of the earth that detour through my laptop, I saw the visibility of ICANN raised above the noise, getting attention from folks who don't usually pay attention - but not positive attention. The narrative getting out there is that ICANN staff is usurping civil society. Since these folks are people involved in public interest/ consumer rights work, I expect that they touch a lot of North American internet users. Which means we (NARALO et al) should be concerned about the perception, if not the merit. I withhold judgement on the merit, because I'm not familiar with the details. Here is another one: Begin forwarded message:
Date: July 22, 2009 5:50:14 PM GMT-04:00 To: Dharma Dailey <dharma@ethoswireless.com> Subject: Fwd: [Isp-08] Please comment on ICANN noncommercial user charter controversy
Hey Dharma.
Are you writing a response to this?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Laura DeNardis <laura.denardis@yale.edu> Date: July 22, 2009 8:12:38 AM EDT To: Isp-08@mailman.yale.edu Subject: [Isp-08] Please comment on ICANN noncommercial user charter controversy
Dear ISP Colleagues,
If anyone is so inclined, please send a quick public email (gnso-stakeholder-charters@icann.org ) to ICANN to weigh in regarding the imposition of the ICANN staff- developed charter for a Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). The bottom line is that ICANN, with no explanation, discarded the charter drafted by civil society in a consensus process and, under pressure from commercial interests, replaced it with an ICANN staff- developed charter. I'll copy some supporting information below, including my public comments, but the issue is ultimately about whether noncommercial Internet users will have a role in ICANN policy making.
Thanks, Laura
Comment from Dr. Milton Mueller (Internet Governance Project): http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00001.html
Comment from Dr. Laura DeNardis (Yale Information Society Project): http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00015.html
IP Justice Statement on Stakeholder Group Charter Injustices: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00012.html
Public Comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/
_______________________________________________ Isp-08 mailing list Isp-08@mailman.yale.edu http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/isp-08
On Jul 23, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Dharma Dailey wrote:
There are more like these in my inbox. The most chatter I've seen on an ICANN issue...
Perhaps, but judging by your mail I'd say that the chatter is either misinformed or is making what I'd consider ... unusual ... conclusions.
ICANN is one teeny tiny part of what is generally thought of as "Internet governance". It attracts plenty of attention because it has -- and generates for others -- a lot of money. But ICANN, at its core, is not charged with anything more than managing domain names. And it has a massively hard time doing *that* right. Mission creep -- whether to create new trademark treaties or judge comparative morality -- is to be resisted.
Some of the elevated interest you see appears to be the result of a concerted effort by members of NCUC to increase its membership in anticipation of the changes happening to GNSO.
Support for a "democratic Internet" sounds nice and squishy, but what does it really mean? And how much does such a movement expect from ICANN that is actually within ICANN's mandate to provide?
Does it mean direct election of people to the ICANN Board? That approach didn't work well. But, then, arguably the current approach isn't very accountable either. So what then?
The current existence of At-Large is currently ICANN's attempt to find out what the "public interest" actually is. Ans as it's matured it's been given more and more voice, leading to At-Large's directly putting people on the ICANN board. You're part of this process and so am I. What can *we* do to help advance better policy? How can *we* influence ICANN to do the right thing?
Of particular interest to me is DeeDee's statement:
A civil society group was set up (agreed to by ICANN-- the official international internet organization) to come up with suggestions for democratizing internet governance. This statement seems wrong on so many levels:
- Who deemed ICANN to be "the official international internet organization"? - What exactly is this civil society group that ICANN agreed to? - What level of agreement? Was it sponsorship? Partnership? Or merely acknowledgement? - Do the people involved in this know how little ICANN's mandate includes "Internet governance"?
I too participated in WSIS and I found much of it to eventually be a waste of time (see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wsis/Leibovitch.html for more). Within At-Large in ICANN I have found a real opportunity to change things, though some of that change will require time, skill and really thick skins.
I would invite anyone who feels strongly about these issues to tackle them from within ICANN. At-Large needs smart and active groups and people who will help us address and confront ICANN policies -- existing and proposed -- that are against the public interest. The infrastructure already exists to do that. And we have demonstrated -- on issues of domain tasting and elsewhere -- that we can be effective in influencing policy when the will and human resources exist to do it. At-Large is far more than a "participatory gesture".
So if DeeDee and others like her want to indeed make a difference, there is already a way. The NCSG mechanism is important, but there is more to the public interest than that mechanism alone. At-Large has a mandate that allows it to participate and influence all corners of ICANN, not just the GNSO portion in which the NCSG would participate. And based on current recommendations we will soon have full participation on the Board.
Today's deadline will come and go, but advancing the public interest requires more than vague letter-writing campaigns asking ICANN to act outside its mandate. People who want to make a difference have clear paths to do so -- and in the process, they'll come to a better understanding of what ICANN *can* do to make the Internet better, and what it can't.
- Evan
Begin forwarded message:
From: DeeDee Halleck <dhalleck@ucsd.edu> Date: July 23, 2009 7:56:46 AM GMT-04:00 To: "MADCoList" <MADCoList@list.media-democracy.net> Cc: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org>, grc@maillist.peak.org, mediaresearchconf07@listserve.ssrc.org Subject: [MADCoList] Open the process for internet governance! Act Today!
Dear friends,
Please read the inclosed letter and take action TODAY-- it is the deadline.
For several years I took part in the deliberations at the World Summit on the Information Society. I wanted to see what other countries were doing in regards to community media and to help negotiate a place for public access within international media regulations and recommendations. As part of this process I learned a bit about internet governance. A civil society group was set up (agreed to by ICANN-- the official international internet organization) to come up with suggestions for democratizing internet governance. We're not talking revolution here, but a few participatory gestures, slight, but important.
To the amazement of the civil society group, these suggestions were completely ignored. ICANN continues to represent only government and commercial interests. The hope that there could be civil society participation has been rudely dashed. However, the group that worked to craft an alternative process is asking ALL THOSE WHO WORK IN NON-PROFIT MEDIA to weigh in and let ICANN know how important it is that civil society gets "a seat at the table".
PLEASE READ THIS AND SEND A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR A DEMOCRATIC INTERNET. DeeDee Halleck
Hi Dharma,
I don't argue the merits of your statement regarding the role of ICANN in the internet governance ecology. And frankly, the interactions between ICANN's internal bodies are mysterious to me. You're far from alone.
I'd hoped that the Summit session on "ICANN 101" would have helped with that, perhaps we ought to turn that into a more permanent document. But as I recall even that took many hours to get through.
I forwarded the example below for two reasons. 1) I saw people who normally don't concern themselves with ICANN raising this issue. 2) I saw multiple people who are not connected with each other raising the issue. So, for the corners of the earth that detour through my laptop, I saw the visibility of ICANN raised above the noise, getting attention from folks who don't usually pay attention - but not positive attention. The narrative getting out there is that ICANN staff is usurping civil society. Since these folks are people involved in public interest/consumer rights work, I expect that they touch a lot of North American internet users. Which means we (NARALO et al) should be concerned about the perception, if not the merit. I withhold judgement on the merit, because I'm not familiar with the details.
IMO this has nothing to do with judging merit. Even if it's just perception it needs to be addressed. When I see these emails, I see an opportunity here to do outreach. If people are mad at ICANN let's bring them in as ALSs or individuals who can participate and make a difference. There *is* a mechanism for change, even if it's immature and sometimes unwieldy. Right now there appear to be a shortage of committed people to go around, and even much of ALAC isn't holding its weight. Sometimes I see meetings or calls stacked by special interests and feel that we just need to show that we won't be intimidated. Any time I read of someone ticked off I see an opportunity to invite them into At-Large and help to chance ICANN from within. On one hand I don't want people coming in to change things ICANN cannot change -- that is an unhelpful distraction. But there is more than enough here to fix that requires an active and aware At-Large. - Evan
On Jul 23, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
I'd hoped that the Summit session on "ICANN 101" would have helped with that, perhaps we ought to turn that into a more permanent document. But as I recall even that took many hours to get through.
For any organization, there is the org chart on the wall and then there is the way things really work. One I mastered in a few minutes, the other is beyond hope.
IMO this has nothing to do with judging merit. Even if it's just perception it needs to be addressed.
Yes, this is where I'm coming from. What are some good options to do at this moment?
When I see these emails, I see an opportunity here to do outreach. If people are mad at ICANN let's bring them in as ALSs or individuals who can participate and make a difference. There *is* a mechanism for change, even if it's immature and sometimes unwieldy. Right now there appear to be a shortage of committed people to go around, and even much of ALAC isn't holding its weight. Sometimes I see meetings or calls stacked by special interests and feel that we just need to show that we won't be intimidated. Any time I read of someone ticked off I see an opportunity to invite them into At-Large and help to chance ICANN from within.
On one hand I don't want people coming in to change things ICANN cannot change -- that is an unhelpful distraction. But there is more than enough here to fix that requires an active and aware At-Large.
Ideally, there would be a spectrum of participatory options that fall between reaching out to existing representatives and becoming one yourself. Everyone who cares about how the internet shouldn't have to become an ICANN expert.
- Evan
This is an interesting thread. Also, its one that I know very little about. Question: Why do we need an NCSG plus an NCUC and At Large? It seems to me to be a bit of overlap here that could be addressed by fewer groups. As I said, though, I really don't know much about this. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dharma Dailey Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:32 PM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: dhalleck@ucsd.edu; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ncuc charter On Jul 23, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
I'd hoped that the Summit session on "ICANN 101" would have helped with that, perhaps we ought to turn that into a more permanent document. But as I recall even that took many hours to get through.
For any organization, there is the org chart on the wall and then there is the way things really work. One I mastered in a few minutes, the other is beyond hope.
IMO this has nothing to do with judging merit. Even if it's just perception it needs to be addressed.
Yes, this is where I'm coming from. What are some good options to do at this moment?
When I see these emails, I see an opportunity here to do outreach. If people are mad at ICANN let's bring them in as ALSs or individuals who can participate and make a difference. There *is* a mechanism for change, even if it's immature and sometimes unwieldy. Right now there appear to be a shortage of committed people to go around, and even much of ALAC isn't holding its weight. Sometimes I see meetings or calls stacked by special interests and feel that we just need to show that we won't be intimidated. Any time I read of someone ticked off I see an opportunity to invite them into At-Large and help to chance ICANN from within.
On one hand I don't want people coming in to change things ICANN cannot change -- that is an unhelpful distraction. But there is more than enough here to fix that requires an active and aware At-Large.
Ideally, there would be a spectrum of participatory options that fall between reaching out to existing representatives and becoming one yourself. Everyone who cares about how the internet shouldn't have to become an ICANN expert.
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Unless I'm mistaken, the NCSG is intended to replace the NCUC? As to the interaction between ALAC and NCUC, that is still a bit of a mystery to me, although ALAC's mandate is clearly broader than NCUC's Gareth On 23-Jul-09, at 11:26 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
This is an interesting thread. Also, its one that I know very little about.
Question: Why do we need an NCSG plus an NCUC and At Large? It seems to me to be a bit of overlap here that could be addressed by fewer groups. As I said, though, I really don't know much about this.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dharma Dailey Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:32 PM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: dhalleck@ucsd.edu; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ncuc charter
On Jul 23, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
I'd hoped that the Summit session on "ICANN 101" would have helped with that, perhaps we ought to turn that into a more permanent document. But as I recall even that took many hours to get through.
For any organization, there is the org chart on the wall and then there is the way things really work. One I mastered in a few minutes, the other is beyond hope.
IMO this has nothing to do with judging merit. Even if it's just perception it needs to be addressed.
Yes, this is where I'm coming from. What are some good options to do at this moment?
When I see these emails, I see an opportunity here to do outreach. If people are mad at ICANN let's bring them in as ALSs or individuals who can participate and make a difference. There *is* a mechanism for change, even if it's immature and sometimes unwieldy. Right now there appear to be a shortage of committed people to go around, and even much of ALAC isn't holding its weight. Sometimes I see meetings or calls stacked by special interests and feel that we just need to show that we won't be intimidated. Any time I read of someone ticked off I see an opportunity to invite them into At-Large and help to chance ICANN from within.
On one hand I don't want people coming in to change things ICANN cannot change -- that is an unhelpful distraction. But there is more than enough here to fix that requires an active and aware At-Large.
Ideally, there would be a spectrum of participatory options that fall between reaching out to existing representatives and becoming one yourself. Everyone who cares about how the internet shouldn't have to become an ICANN expert.
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org
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 ------
Check out the comments. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/index.html#00015 All the comments that I looked at seem to being working from a framework of belief that staff is usurping civil society. People may never figure out (or care) what ICANN does or how it works, but a story of a snub has a way of snowballing. Once it's out there, it's hard to pull back. At a minimum, I think we (NARALO) should reach out to staff and petitioners to get a handle on what's going on. On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Gareth Shearman wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, the NCSG is intended to replace the NCUC?
As to the interaction between ALAC and NCUC, that is still a bit of a mystery to me, although ALAC's mandate is clearly broader than NCUC's
Gareth
On 23-Jul-09, at 11:26 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
This is an interesting thread. Also, its one that I know very little about.
Question: Why do we need an NCSG plus an NCUC and At Large? It seems to me to be a bit of overlap here that could be addressed by fewer groups. As I said, though, I really don't know much about this.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dharma Dailey Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:32 PM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: dhalleck@ucsd.edu; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ncuc charter
On Jul 23, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
I'd hoped that the Summit session on "ICANN 101" would have helped with that, perhaps we ought to turn that into a more permanent document. But as I recall even that took many hours to get through.
For any organization, there is the org chart on the wall and then there is the way things really work. One I mastered in a few minutes, the other is beyond hope.
IMO this has nothing to do with judging merit. Even if it's just perception it needs to be addressed.
Yes, this is where I'm coming from. What are some good options to do at this moment?
When I see these emails, I see an opportunity here to do outreach. If people are mad at ICANN let's bring them in as ALSs or individuals who can participate and make a difference. There *is* a mechanism for change, even if it's immature and sometimes unwieldy. Right now there appear to be a shortage of committed people to go around, and even much of ALAC isn't holding its weight. Sometimes I see meetings or calls stacked by special interests and feel that we just need to show that we won't be intimidated. Any time I read of someone ticked off I see an opportunity to invite them into At-Large and help to chance ICANN from within.
On one hand I don't want people coming in to change things ICANN cannot change -- that is an unhelpful distraction. But there is more than enough here to fix that requires an active and aware At-Large.
Ideally, there would be a spectrum of participatory options that fall between reaching out to existing representatives and becoming one yourself. Everyone who cares about how the internet shouldn't have to become an ICANN expert.
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org
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 ------
Hi Dharma,
All the comments that I looked at seem to being working from a framework of belief that staff is usurping civil society. People may never figure out (or care) what ICANN does or how it works, but a story of a snub has a way of snowballing. Once it's out there, it's hard to pull back. At a minimum, I think we (NARALO) should reach out to staff and petitioners to get a handle on what's going on.
This sounds absolutely reasonable.
From my own experience, ICANN staff tends to be as good or bad as the constituents around them. Remember, GNSO support staff also exist to serve the contracted parties and business interests which still have major seats at that particular table. What might look like a snub may have been a vote that didn't go civil society's way or some other political loss -- that constituency does not have anywhere near a balance of power within GNSO. In this particular respect At-Large has an easier path to the top of the ICANN food chain; we just haven't been very effective in exploiting the tools available to us. Keep in mind that the business interests and contracted parties are very motivated and better organized. If we go into policy debate unprepared, too late or in too-small numbers we lose.
We need people, we need participants. One doesn't need to be an expert in all things ICANN to monitor a specific issue or committee and help us mobilize before it's too late (ie, putting out a paniced call to arms on deadline day). The field is diverse enough such that single-issue specialists still have plenty to do. I can't speak for GNSO but I do not believe that ALAC is being usurped by its staff -- certainly not by the staff assigned to us. That's not to say that all of ICANN staff are supportive of At-Large; I can identify a few -- some very high up -- who are downright contemptuous of our very presence. But there have been some welcome surprises as well; CFO Kevin Wilson clearly "gets" us. As At-Large matures and produces more policy, I expect the trend to shift further. The signs about ICANN's new CEO are promising, but we need to be vigilant that the reality matches the promise. Generally these days when there is problem with staff (IMO) it usually comes from staff filling vacuums that At-Large people should have filled in the first place. Dharma, are you interested in helping create a strategy that turns the dissatisfaction you see into an outreach opportunity, one that could increase At-Large's ability to respond to the problems that are being identified? Do you have anything particular in mind? - Evan
On Jul 23, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Dharma, are you interested in helping create a strategy that turns the dissatisfaction you see into an outreach opportunity, one that could increase At-Large's ability to respond to the problems that are being identified? Do you have anything particular in mind?
Here's what I think might work. NARALO identifies people who can speak to the differences from both sides. NARALO hosts a conference call where these parties can each speak their case. The call is facilitated and structured so that each side feels they are getting a fair deal. We promote the call so anyone can listen. We do it fairly soon so that it's timely to the decision making process. We seek a sponsor other than ICANN to foot the cost of the call -- (we can't ask staff to facilitate and host a gripe with staff.) I would be willing to 1) organize and promote such a call; 2) seek a sponsor to foot the cost -- *if* - there is general support for such a move among NARALO members and *if* a couple of others would help sort out who would be best get talking This small gesture could be considered a recruitment effort. If people like how we pull it off they may be inclined to join us.
- Evan
------ 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 ------
I am not without my biases in this, but I will try to explain what is going on in as unbiased a way as possible. NCUC proposed a charter for the new NCSG. The Board (in conjunction with or through its Structural Improvements Committee) rejected some parts of that charter saying that it did not meet the Board's criteria, particularly with regard to being able to attract new players into the NCSG (one of the prime motivators for the planned new GNSO structure). The Board instructed that staff propose alternative wording for the charter which they did, and that revised charter is now out for comment. The NCUC (quite naturally) objected to the proposed changes, and has done a good job of encouraging their own members and like-minded people to voice those objections. Alan At 23/07/2009 04:47 PM, Dharma Dailey wrote:
Check out the comments. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/index.html#00015
All the comments that I looked at seem to being working from a framework of belief that staff is usurping civil society. People may never figure out (or care) what ICANN does or how it works, but a story of a snub has a way of snowballing. Once it's out there, it's hard to pull back. At a minimum, I think we (NARALO) should reach out to staff and petitioners to get a handle on what's going on.
Thanks Alan This was a very clear, concise and impartial summary. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, 23 July 2009 05:50 PM To: Dharma Dailey; Gareth Shearman Cc: Thompson, Darlene; dhalleck@ucsd.edu; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ncuc charter I am not without my biases in this, but I will try to explain what is going on in as unbiased a way as possible. NCUC proposed a charter for the new NCSG. The Board (in conjunction with or through its Structural Improvements Committee) rejected some parts of that charter saying that it did not meet the Board's criteria, particularly with regard to being able to attract new players into the NCSG (one of the prime motivators for the planned new GNSO structure). The Board instructed that staff propose alternative wording for the charter which they did, and that revised charter is now out for comment. The NCUC (quite naturally) objected to the proposed changes, and has done a good job of encouraging their own members and like-minded people to voice those objections. Alan At 23/07/2009 04:47 PM, Dharma Dailey wrote:
Check out the comments. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/index.html#00015
All the comments that I looked at seem to being working from a framework of belief that staff is usurping civil society. People may never figure out (or care) what ICANN does or how it works, but a story of a snub has a way of snowballing. Once it's out there, it's hard to pull back. At a minimum, I think we (NARALO) should reach out to staff and petitioners to get a handle on what's going on.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Alan Greenberg wrote:
NCUC proposed a charter for the new NCSG. The Board (in conjunction with or through its Structural Improvements Committee) rejected some parts of that charter saying that it did not meet the Board's criteria, particularly with regard to being able to attract new players into the NCSG (one of the prime motivators for the planned new GNSO structure). The Board instructed that staff propose alternative wording for the charter which they did, and that revised charter is now out for comment.
The NCUC (quite naturally) objected to the proposed changes, and has done a good job of encouraging their own members and like-minded people to voice those objections.
Sorry, Alan, but I have one question of clarification for the benefit of all readers. Reading what you wrote above, it appears that the Board wants all GNSO constituencies to be "able to attract new players", but that the NCUC is fighting against this. This _could_ be interpreted as NCUC's opposing an intent to be more inclusive, which seems counter-intuitive. Does the aim to "attract new players" do so in a way that brings more advocates to the new NCSG, or simply dilutes its already-limited influence? How are other constituencies impacted by this Board criteria? (I know you've been through this endlessly before, but as you can appreciate -- and has been illustrated in Dharma's recent messages -- it's a very difficult story to tell.) - Evan
See my answer embedded... At 23/07/2009 10:55 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Alan Greenberg wrote:
NCUC proposed a charter for the new NCSG. The Board (in conjunction with or through its Structural Improvements Committee) rejected some parts of that charter saying that it did not meet the Board's criteria, particularly with regard to being able to attract new players into the NCSG (one of the prime motivators for the planned new GNSO structure). The Board instructed that staff propose alternative wording for the charter which they did, and that revised charter is now out for comment.
The NCUC (quite naturally) objected to the proposed changes, and has done a good job of encouraging their own members and like-minded people to voice those objections.
Sorry, Alan, but I have one question of clarification for the benefit of all readers.
Reading what you wrote above, it appears that the Board wants all GNSO constituencies to be "able to attract new players", but that the NCUC is fighting against this. This _could_ be interpreted as NCUC's opposing an intent to be more inclusive, which seems counter-intuitive.
I don't think that such a characterization of NCUC would fair. I have no doubt that they feel they are being completely open, welcoming and inclusive. It is a value judgement whether the details of their charter will allow the NCSG to succeed in attracting "new players" (see below). Clearly the people who drafted the charter and at least some percentage of the Board/SIC do not agree on this.
Does the aim to "attract new players" do so in a way that brings more advocates to the new NCSG, or simply dilutes its already-limited influence?
Well, the hope and intent was that we could attract a variety of non-commercial interests representing a wide range of positions. The original Board committee document said "We want to emphasize that a new non-commercial Stakeholders Group must go far beyond the membership of the current Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC). We must consider educational, research, and philanthropic organizations, foundations, think tanks, members of academia, individual registrant groups and other noncommercial organizations, as well as individual registrants, as part of a non-commercial registrants Stakeholders Group." How strong the influence of any of these would be is not known. Clearly the intent was to populate the new non-commercial entity with a wider range of views than those perceived to be represented in the old NCUC.
How are other constituencies impacted by this Board criteria?
As you can see by the quote above, the criticism was leveled primarily at the non-commercial representation. However, the same could be said about the commercial side, and in fact, a number of us have made such comments. I personally feel that the CSG is too restrictive (the NCUC made a similar comment about the CSG today). To date, the Board has not voiced this concern (at least, not where I have heard it). The criteria does not really apply to the Registrars and Registries at the moment, but in the world of new gTLDs, it may be more relevant.
(I know you've been through this endlessly before, but as you can appreciate -- and has been illustrated in Dharma's recent messages -- it's a very difficult story to tell.)
It is indeed, and unfortunately, capsule answers such as the one I gave do not come close to doing justice to all of the issues at play here. And it is important to remember that there are really big $$ involved in some of the issues, and not just philosophical issue. And big $$ implies big politics. Just watch the IRT drama being carried on before our eyes. Alan
- Evan
I echo Jacqueline in thanking you for the concise synopsis. D (feeling more in the loop now) Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Sation 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thu 7/23/2009 5:49 PM To: Dharma Dailey; Gareth Shearman Cc: Thompson, Darlene; dhalleck@ucsd.edu; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ncuc charter I am not without my biases in this, but I will try to explain what is going on in as unbiased a way as possible. NCUC proposed a charter for the new NCSG. The Board (in conjunction with or through its Structural Improvements Committee) rejected some parts of that charter saying that it did not meet the Board's criteria, particularly with regard to being able to attract new players into the NCSG (one of the prime motivators for the planned new GNSO structure). The Board instructed that staff propose alternative wording for the charter which they did, and that revised charter is now out for comment. The NCUC (quite naturally) objected to the proposed changes, and has done a good job of encouraging their own members and like-minded people to voice those objections. Alan At 23/07/2009 04:47 PM, Dharma Dailey wrote:
Check out the comments. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/index.html#00015
All the comments that I looked at seem to being working from a framework of belief that staff is usurping civil society. People may never figure out (or care) what ICANN does or how it works, but a story of a snub has a way of snowballing. Once it's out there, it's hard to pull back. At a minimum, I think we (NARALO) should reach out to staff and petitioners to get a handle on what's going on.
------ 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 <http://www.naralo.org/> ------
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Dharma Dailey -
Evan Leibovitch -
Gareth Shearman -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Thompson, Darlene