Civic Representation in ICANN: What Now? - ISOC-NY Forum @ NYU 10/8/09
*** Please feel free to email me off list with any egregious mistakes in my description below. Joly@punkcast.com *** Civic Representation in ICANN: What Now? What: An ISOC-NY Forum When: Thurs Oct 8 2009 – 6:45pm – 8:45pm Where: Warren Weaver Hall NYU 251 Mercer St Rm 317 New York NY 10012 http://cs.nyu.edu/web/Location/directions.html Who: Dr Milton Mueller; Beau Brendler; Danny Younger Admission free: RSVP president@isoc-ny.org On Oct 1 2009 the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) entered a new era as its Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the US Government expired and it became a truly independent global organization. In this forum we will examine the processes, currently in flux, of how we the people will get to participate in this new paradigm. The newly coined Articles of Commitment (AoC) state that ICANN will “operate as a multi-stakeholder, private sector led organization with input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act.” Currently there are two mechanisms by which the Internet using public are represented at ICANN. The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC aka NonComm) in the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the At-Large organization.. The At-Large Advisory Council was formed, with official liaison status, as an interim measure in 2003 after the ICANN board had dispensed with direct public elections. In 2007 with the establishment of regional At-Large Organizations (ALO’s). the ALAC became permanent. ALO membership is open to all individuals and organizations can apply to become an At-Large Structure (ALS). In 2009 it was agreed that an ICANN board seat be allotted to the At-Large. The GNSO Council is ICANN’s primary body responsible for policy recommendations for generic top level domains. The board balances the GNSO recommendations with input from the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and liaisons from various technical groups, plus At Large (soon to be seated, as mentioned) plus the ICANN Ombudsman. Other constituencies in are, Business/Commercial, Registries, ISPs, and Intellectual Property. The NCUC, formerly the Noncommercial Domain Holders Constituency, has thus been, since ICANN’s inception, the sole voice of non-commercial users on the GNSO Council. As such it has taken to representing regular internet users’ concerns as well as those of registrants. Earlier this year ICANN proposed another re-organization, replacing the GNSO constituencies with two ‘houses’ – Contracted and Non-contracted, each of which was further divided into two stakeholder groups. Contracted has Registries and Registrars; Non-Contracted has Commercial (CSG) and Noncommercial (NCSG). 12 seats on the GNSO Council would be split thus: CSG 6; NCSG 6; Registries 3; Registrars 3. The former ISP, Business, and IP constituencies are to be folded into the CSG and presumably take two seats each. On the NCSG front: 3 seats have been alloted to the NCUC and 3 placeholders have been selected by the ICANN Structural Improvement Committee. The NCUC has argued against the plan insisting that it will only serve to further balkanize the GNSO process, and that practical policymaking would be better served by ad-hoc working groups than the proposed legislative approach. http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/executive-summary-ncsg-prop... However some members – of both the NCUC and At-Large – with particular axes to grind, are keen on a plan that will permit them to represent their interests in the GNSO without having to carry the NCUC with them. The three speakers we are bringing together on Oct 8 represent widely differing views on how it is best to proceed in the public interest. It is sure to be a very lively and interesting discussion. We will webcast and there will be an opportunity for remote participation via a chatroom. More info: http://isoc-ny.org/?p=886 Speakers: Dr. Milton Mueller Milton Mueller is a Professor and Director of the Telecommunications Network Management Program at the Syracuse University School of Information Studies. He is the author of ‘Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace’ (MIT Press, 2002) – the definitive account of early Internet governance debates. Mueller was a co-founder of the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and was chair of NCUC from 2003-2005. http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Beau Brendler: Beau Brendler is a journalist and consumer activist who takes a particular interest in Internet affairs. He was a founder and editorial director of ABCNews.com before moving to a fulltime position at the Consumers Union in 2001 where he launched Consumer WebWatch . He is an active member of the ICANN Community and serves on the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) . He has recently proposed the establishment of a Consumer Constituency within the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). Danny Younger: Danny Younger has been involved with ICANN since at least 2001 including active participation on the General Assembly mailing list. He represented ISOC-NY in the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) from 2004-2007. He has for some time advocated for a single Registrants constituency within the GNSO. More info: ICANN Structure: http://www.icann.org/en/structure/ NonCommercial Users Constituency: http://www.ncdnhc.org/ At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.icann.org/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
Unless ISOC NY has taken sides on this issue -- and it hasn't, at least in NARALO discussions -- I would take strong issue with language such as *However some members – of both the NCUC and At-Large – with particular* * axes to grind, are keen on a plan that will permit them to represent* * their interests in the GNSO without having to carry the NCUC with* * them.* This hardly sounds like the meeting is intended as a fair hearing. *** Please feel free to email me off list with any egregious mistakes
in my description below. Joly@punkcast.com ***
Shouldn't you have asked for such comments *before* sending the announcement to a very widely read global list? - Evan
Just a reminder that this event starts at 6:45pm - just 2 hours from now. *Improved* description at http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=886 The webcast will be at http://livestream.com/isocny I hope to be able to monitor the chat while moderating. joly
Civic Representation in ICANN: What Now?
What: An ISOC-NY Forum When: Thurs Oct 8 2009 – 6:45pm – 8:45pm Where: Warren Weaver Hall NYU 251 Mercer St Rm 317 New York NY 10012 http://cs.nyu.edu/web/Location/directions.html Who: Dr Milton Mueller; Beau Brendler; Danny Younger
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
On Thursday 8 October I noted the publication of an ALAC Statement on the Document Publication Operational Policy on the ExCom list. I have no particular issue with the content of the Statement, but would appreciate the opportunity to understand the process leading up to such Statements. 1. I don't recall seeing any of the regional secretariats bringing this matter to the attention of their respective communities. 2. I don't recall reading any local commentary on the topic on any of the RALO lists. 3. The subject matter wasn't discussed on the primary ALAC list 4. The topic wasn't discussed on the At-Large list 5. I didn't see any vote scheduled on this Statement 6. The Agenda for the most recent ALAC meeting indicated that the subject of the Document Publication Operational Policy was not presently scheduled for an At-Large response Perhaps someone in the know can explain to the rest of us the process by which the ALAC generates Statements on behalf of the at-large community. If the latest Statement is a typical example, then where is the transparency in the process?
Hi Danny, Perhaps I can give you some insight and assistance with the process (or lack thereof in terms of recent list activity) on this matter... Others who have represented ALAC at various of the contributory processes that went into this ALAC contribution to the Public Comment process may also wish to have input as well but many of them may not be subscribed to the NA regional list... The ALAC input is a restatement of previous endorsed statements made and in several cases developed out of the At-Large Summit and points made by members of the At-Large directly in the vbulletin process used this time and from various F2F meetings and teleconferences held including , but not limited to the WG-1 Summit activities, the PPC meetings at Mexico and Sydney and teleconference briefing calls... so it is not a *fresh statement* developed by lists (which if course is not the only way discussion happen or policy is developed in ALAC any way) and if this is a lack of transparency when at our September meeting we discussed and agreed a synthesis of what we have said on this matter is what is needed as direct input to this Public Comment period => which we also agreed we needed to MAKE formal input to on behalf of ALAC; then I assume this matter will be brought to the ALAC's attention as a complaint from NARALO at our October meeting in Seoul... Evan, Gareth & Beau please advise me what NARALO's wishes are on this and if you need either the Comment or the process of it reviewed or discussed and by who and what the specifics of the Agenda item are ASAP... CLO 2009/10/11 Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>
On Thursday 8 October I noted the publication of an ALAC Statement on the Document Publication Operational Policy on the ExCom list. I have no particular issue with the content of the Statement, but would appreciate the opportunity to understand the process leading up to such Statements.
1. I don't recall seeing any of the regional secretariats bringing this matter to the attention of their respective communities. 2. I don't recall reading any local commentary on the topic on any of the RALO lists. 3. The subject matter wasn't discussed on the primary ALAC list 4. The topic wasn't discussed on the At-Large list 5. I didn't see any vote scheduled on this Statement 6. The Agenda for the most recent ALAC meeting indicated that the subject of the Document Publication Operational Policy was not presently scheduled for an At-Large response
Perhaps someone in the know can explain to the rest of us the process by which the ALAC generates Statements on behalf of the at-large community. If the latest Statement is a typical example, then where is the transparency in the process?
------ 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 ------
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
Hi Cheryl, I'm sure that you understand that one of the primary points brought forth in the Document Publication Operational Policy was the need to provide ample time for document evaluation (at least fifteen days for public review and download). It's a good policy. This leads one to ask: "How much time elapsed between the moment this Statement/document was prepared and the time that it was submitted?" Likely that timeframe was measured in minutes rather than in days or weeks. Did ALAC members or anyone else have the opportunity to comment on this Statement before it was submitted? It sure doesn't look like it. There is a value in having a set process in place by which Statements are prepared, discussed, reviewed, ratified and submitted. The GAC certainly has a well-defined process, as does the SSAC. All that I asked for was an explanation of the process by which the ALAC generates Statements on behalf of the at-large community... please feel free to outline that process step by step that we might better understand things like: 1. at what point is a proposed Statement brought to the attention of the RALOs for discussion and input 2. how much time is allowed for discussion of a proposed Statement before a vote occurs 3. are votes required to affirm a Statement 4. will Statements continue to be submitted to ICANN before they are ratified by a vote in short, do you have any rules of procedure to govern the formulation and ratification of ALAC Statements, or are you just making it up as you go?
Hi Danny Alan has responded with an excellent outline of matters and response to some of your 'matters of principal and practice issues' so there is no need for me to repeat any of that... As we strive to improve and most importantly to aid the RALO and ALSes proper role in policy analysis and comment *and Yes it is a work in progress but I believe it IS progressing all be it not fast enough for many of us ME included* I know you know Danny but all on this list may not that the ICANN Bylaws <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XI>(Article XI, Sec. 2, Part 4g) state that "....Each RALO shall serve as the main forum and coordination point for public input to ICANN ...." and as we continue to 'workshop' this with the Regional Leadership and the ALAC in Seoul I'll ensure that your questions (and any others forwarded to this list) are used as focus points to our discussions and debate... Again thanks for helping to make ALAC and At-Large what it is today, and most importantly what it will be after the implementation of the recommendations from the ALAC Review by your diligent and thoughtful ( though at time challenging {not a bad thing at all IMO} input) I hope that time zones and work commitments will also mean your remotely participating in the October Meetings we'll be holding in Seoul, as I and many others find you input very valuable indeed. CLO 2009/10/11 Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>
Hi Cheryl,
I'm sure that you understand that one of the primary points brought forth in the Document Publication Operational Policy was the need to provide ample time for document evaluation (at least fifteen days for public review and download). It's a good policy.
This leads one to ask: "How much time elapsed between the moment this Statement/document was prepared and the time that it was submitted?" Likely that timeframe was measured in minutes rather than in days or weeks.
Did ALAC members or anyone else have the opportunity to comment on this Statement before it was submitted? It sure doesn't look like it.
There is a value in having a set process in place by which Statements are prepared, discussed, reviewed, ratified and submitted. The GAC certainly has a well-defined process, as does the SSAC.
All that I asked for was an explanation of the process by which the ALAC generates Statements on behalf of the at-large community...
please feel free to outline that process step by step that we might better understand things like:
1. at what point is a proposed Statement brought to the attention of the RALOs for discussion and input
2. how much time is allowed for discussion of a proposed Statement before a vote occurs
3. are votes required to affirm a Statement
4. will Statements continue to be submitted to ICANN before they are ratified by a vote
in short, do you have any rules of procedure to govern the formulation and ratification of ALAC Statements, or are you just making it up as you go?
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
participants (4)
-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Joly MacFie