<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Charters RESPONSE</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
Only one point here Cheryl – you are saying: <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>“The Alternative Charter is not too late. I have again talked<BR>
with ICANN staff...” - I am not sure how plausible this is. We have already sent a charter and you speaking to ICANN staff about an alternative one is – for me at least – quite worrying. NCUC is trying as hard as we can to influence ICANN/GNSO decisions and you enquiring the possibility of submitting a new charter does not make us seem as a team that has in place democratic processes, which is not the case. I just wanted to express my concern over this as it is completely misleading to the way we are working.<BR>
<BR>
Konstantinos<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
On 01/12/2008 18:33, "Cheryl Preston" <<a href="PRESTONC@LAWGATE.BYU.EDU">PRESTONC@LAWGATE.BYU.EDU</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>This topic has raised interesting discussion on the very kind of issues<BR>
that non-commercial Internet users should be talking about. We have<BR>
heard from all of the active NCUC folks, except for Robin and Carlos and<BR>
they will probably weigh in later today. Rather than respond to each of<BR>
the statements made by Bill, Milton, Konstantin, Norbert and Mary (as<BR>
much as I may like to), I am going to focus on 3 VERY BIG issues.<BR>
<BR>
1. The Alternative Charter is not too late. I have again talked<BR>
with ICANN staff and there is no “deadline” that was missed. The<BR>
only time frame was Milton’s offer to the Board representatives in<BR>
Cairo to turn in a draft before the end of November, and both versions<BR>
met this. The staff is just beginning to address their procedures in<BR>
reviewing charter proposals. ICANN as an organization is not going to<BR>
cut off valuable discussion and consideration of alternatives without<BR>
having a clear, publicly posted deadline.<BR>
<BR>
2. Mary is correct in describing the “cohesive, unified”<BR>
approach that has been the hallmark of NCUC representation. Rather than<BR>
being a political strength, however, the single issue solidarity has<BR>
been seen by many in ICANN as a weakness, as a barrier to consensus<BR>
building. The NCUC representatives are solidified around free<BR>
expression and the kind of “net neutrality” that overrides competing<BR>
concerns for protections and standards on the Internet. If you would<BR>
like a list of NCUC statements and positions over the last few years,<BR>
let me know.<BR>
<BR>
They are effective in voting as a block. The business users group, for<BR>
example, is made up of 3-4 constituencies who do not always have<BR>
“similar interests,” but sometimes widely inconsistent and<BR>
competing interests that have to be negotiated. (Do you want<BR>
testimonials?) A broad-based, consensus building model is meant to<BR>
foster compromises and balancing at every level.<BR>
<BR>
I agree wholeheartedly with Norbert when he talks about the evils of<BR>
governmental repression of political speech. Building an Internet that<BR>
can resist such pressure is a fundamental value of mine as well.<BR>
However, we are capable of the more sophisticated approach, as is true<BR>
in the law of every free nation. We need not oppose every kind of<BR>
regulation or law enforcement on the Web to reach our goals on political<BR>
repression. Mary notes that “NCUC is often the only forum/voice for<BR>
individuals and non-business interests to discuss fundamental public<BR>
policy issues such as fair and open Internet access/neutrality.” The<BR>
fact that it is the only forum/voice is exactly why it needs to include<BR>
and represent those who have other valuable concerns to balance with<BR>
“open access.”<BR>
<BR>
3. You all have expertise to make the critical decisions about<BR>
charters. ICANN is aware that their efforts to build a bottom-up<BR>
support organization have been impaired by the way newcomers are treated<BR>
(Note: be sure to respond to the constituency survey before the<BR>
mid-December deadline). We must avoid the kind of dialogue that conveys<BR>
this message: “There is this bigger, scary political dynamic and rules<BR>
and deadlines you can’t understand, and you, as a newcomer, don’t<BR>
have nearly enough history, background, insider connections, and<BR>
expertise.”<BR>
<BR>
The issue here is simple, and all of you are more than qualified to<BR>
address it: Should the representatives for all non-commercial Internet<BR>
users in ICANN’s policy processes unify in solidarity for free<BR>
expression in a simple structure that squeezes out other user interests<BR>
and alternative approaches?<BR>
<BR>
I see no reason to continue any discussion other than on the merits of<BR>
the two proposals.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Cheryl B. Preston<BR>
Edwin M. Thomas<BR>
Professor of Law<BR>
J. Reuben Clark Law School<BR>
Brigham Young University<BR>
434 JRCB<BR>
Provo, UT 84602<BR>
(801) 422-2312<BR>
<a href="prestonc@lawgate.byu.edu">prestonc@lawgate.byu.edu</a><BR>
<BR>
>>> Mary Wong <<a href="mwong@PIERCELAW.EDU">mwong@PIERCELAW.EDU</a>> 11/30/2008 11:54 pm >>><BR>
Hello everyone<BR>
<BR>
I'd like to add my own note of welcome to all new members, whose voice<BR>
and expertise I personally am looking forward to benefiting from. As<BR>
Norbert has done, I'd like also to introduce myself briefly and to do<BR>
what I can to clarify what's been happening at/within ICANN and NCUC.<BR>
<BR>
Along with Bill Drake (who, with others who have long been involved in<BR>
Internet governance issues, is currently flying the flag for<BR>
bottom-up,<BR>
multistakeholder involvement at the IGF in Hyderabad) I was recently<BR>
elected as a new NCUC representative to the GNSO Council (joining<BR>
Carlos<BR>
Affonso de Pereira from Brazil). As many of you know, I pledged to<BR>
respect and further open discussion of what at times are disparate<BR>
voices, disagreements and differing priorities/issues amongst us,<BR>
while<BR>
trying my best to craft a representative and - if possible - unified<BR>
viewpoint to other constituencies and groups within ICANN. Unlike the<BR>
other GNSO constituencies, NCUC is unique in that our members will not<BR>
always have similar views on many issues; this, unfortunately, can<BR>
also<BR>
be our "weakness" (and I will explain what I mean by this below).<BR>
<BR>
Although I have less personal experience/involvement in ICANN than<BR>
many<BR>
of you (especially Milton, Norbert, Robin, Carlos and others) my<BR>
recent<BR>
observations and experiences (from Paris and Cairo, and now - wading<BR>
daily through over a dozen (often more) lengthy emails and numerous<BR>
conference calls/requests regarding GNSO work) are as follows, first<BR>
on<BR>
GNSO/ICANN and then on the ongoing NCUC/NCSG process.<BR>
<BR>
1. GNSO/ICANN<BR>
<BR>
- I can't overly emphasize how vital it is for all NCUC members to<BR>
realize that we are often a group "under siege" by better-funded, more<BR>
unified (for having more clearly aligned - usually commercial -<BR>
interests) constituencies/groups, including - and sometimes especially<BR>
-<BR>
within the GNSO.<BR>
<BR>
- The main reason for this lies mostly with the fact that, as our name<BR>
implies, we are there to represent the non-commercial users (whether<BR>
institutions or individuals); as such, NCUC is often the only<BR>
forum/voice for individuals and non-business interests to discuss<BR>
fundamental public policy issues such as fair and open Internet<BR>
access/neutrality.<BR>
<BR>
- NCUC's Councillors generally endeavor to speak and vote according to<BR>
what we perceive - largely through feedback mechanisms such as this<BR>
listserv - to be the prevailing view (and if possible, consensus)<BR>
amongst NCUC members. While we three each cast individual votes, we<BR>
try<BR>
as far as possible to discuss and coordinate our actions and views. We<BR>
also know there will be times where there is no NCUC view or<BR>
consensus;<BR>
at such times, we try our best to discern an objective and fair<BR>
viewpoint to take. Should any NCUC member believe that any of our<BR>
votes<BR>
or speeches misrepresent the constituency view or are otherwise<BR>
unsupported/insupportable, we hope you will not hesitate to raise the<BR>
matter publicly (e.g. on this listserv.)<BR>
<BR>
- ICANN is a hugely complex, and dare I say intimidatingly<BR>
bureaucratized, organization: not only are there multiple issues<BR>
(ranging from technical standards to public policy) being worked on at<BR>
once, but deadlines are usually tight, and coordination often<BR>
difficult<BR>
to achieve. This often also means that the better-funded and<BR>
professionally-staffed constituencies can muster views and positions<BR>
much more quickly and consistently than NCUC (since most if not all of<BR>
us do ICANN work on top of our regular jobs.) As I said before, my<BR>
view<BR>
therefore is that it's crucial for NCUC (or whatever group ultimately<BR>
represents non-commercial users at ICANN) to present a coherent and,<BR>
if<BR>
possible, unified public viewpoint, as this makes our position<BR>
stronger<BR>
and our views more likely to make an impact.<BR>
<BR>
2. On the NCUC/NCSG question<BR>
<BR>
- Milton and (I believe) Konstantinos has already outlined the<BR>
background and timelines involved in this, so let me just add my<BR>
personal belief that this is one issue where NCUC members CANNOT<BR>
afford<BR>
to appear fragmented and disunited. With the backgrorestructuring (and<BR>
recalling the recent, fraught and difficult battle<BR>
over the number of votes per existing constituency in the new<BR>
bicameral<BR>
house structure), the political reality is that it is entirely<BR>
possible<BR>
that a diffused and weakened Non-Commercial user group will mean less<BR>
influence and respect in the restructured GNSO.<BR>
<BR>
- Let me add also that it is currently UNCLEAR what the relationship<BR>
between the proposed new Stakeholder Groups and constituencies will<BR>
be.<BR>
None of the official ICANN studies or documents discuss (much less<BR>
resolve) this question, making it all the more important that there be<BR>
a<BR>
unified, strong Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that will continue to<BR>
represent - and fight - for non-commercial voices and interests.<BR>
<BR>
- I support Milton's proposal for a number of reasons, including the<BR>
very strong impression I got in Cairo that it would greatly benefit<BR>
NCUC/NCSG to submit a formal proposal to the Board as early as it<BR>
could<BR>
possibly do so. The draft proposal was what was discussed and (as a<BR>
result) modified, and it was the modified document that was submitted<BR>
within the designated time period.<BR>
<BR>
- Finally, and returning briefly to the "platform" upon which I asked<BR>
for all of your support in the Council, it is absolutely critical that<BR>
the Non-Commercial user group does NOT allow itself to be divided into<BR>
multiple and different groups that do not have a formal vote in the<BR>
new<BR>
GNSO structure. Milton's proposal has the benefit of allowing not just<BR>
the formation of new constituencies WITHIN a strong Non-Commercial<BR>
Stakeholder Group (NCSG), it also gives those new constituencies a<BR>
voice<BR>
and vote within the NCSG AND avoids the fragmentation and consequent<BR>
weakening of our "external positioning" that I have already mentioned.<BR>
<BR>
With apologies for the length of this post,<BR>
<BR>
Mary<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>>> Norbert Klein <<a href="nhklein@GMX.NET">nhklein@GMX.NET</a>> 11/30/08 3:16 PM >>><BR>
Dear new individual members of the NCUC (the new NCSG does not yet<BR>
exist) who<BR>
wrote recently,<BR>
<BR>
"Ralph D. Clifford" <<a href="rclifford@snesl.edu">rclifford@snesl.edu</a>><BR>
"Jon Garon" <<a href="jgaron01@gw.hamline.edu">jgaron01@gw.hamline.edu</a>><BR>
"Kim, Nancy" <<a href="nsk@cwsl.edu">nsk@cwsl.edu</a>><BR>
<BR>
May I first introduce myself: Norbert Klein, since 1990 in Cambodia,<BR>
working<BR>
since 1994 in non-commercial organizations – in 1994 I created the<BR>
first<BR>
<BR>
Internet system in the country, in 1996 the country address .kh, and<BR>
in<BR>
1999<BR>
I joined the “non-commercials” in ICANN – at that time it had a<BR>
different<BR>
name. During the last three years I was sent by the NCUC as a<BR>
councillor<BR>
into<BR>
the GNSO. Since November 2008, I am a member of the ICANN Nomination<BR>
Committee.<BR>
<BR>
Though my working day – though a Sunday – went beyond midnight, I<BR>
want<BR>
to<BR>
write to you and our community, because I am concerned about what you<BR>
write –<BR>
my mail is still basically a letter of welcome. I may not respond to<BR>
all<BR>
of<BR>
your concern and questions in a way you may expect – but I do so on<BR>
the<BR>
basis<BR>
of many hours during many years of a struggle to get our voice - the<BR>
Non<BR>
Commercial Users Constituency – heard, as it developed over the<BR>
years,<BR>
and in<BR>
the context of ICANN. We found ourselves often in a difficult position<BR>
-<BR>
<BR>
others with business, intellectual property, and technical mandates<BR>
had<BR>
often<BR>
better institutional support structures.<BR>
<BR>
While I understand your hope, saying to “add that simplicity is also<BR>
<BR>
valuable,... ... without adding significant complexity to the<BR>
proposal”<BR>
- I<BR>
can only plead to spend quite some more time working through the<BR>
complexity<BR>
of the ICANN website:<BR>
<BR>
<a href="http://www.icann.org">http://www.icann.org</a><BR>
<BR>
Surely you have done it – but I admit, after so many years, that I<BR>
am<BR>
still<BR>
struggling to be oriented – not only about the structures – but<BR>
about<BR>
the<BR>
dynamics and time lines, which exist and to which we have to adapt<BR>
ourselves,<BR>
if we want to have our voice heard, according to the right procedure,<BR>
at<BR>
the<BR>
right place, and at the right time.<BR>
<BR>
One sentence makes me concerned: “The bottom line is that ICANN is<BR>
not<BR>
perceived to be an open organization, nor one that is willing to<BR>
proPerceived by whom? A complex network of cooperating organizations and<BR>
<BR>
institutions with their different interests cannot be called to be<BR>
“not<BR>
open”<BR>
for having worked out, changed, further developed, and revised again,<BR>
certain<BR>
rules and procedures. The discussions and outside consultancies and<BR>
preparations towards the present GNSO restructuring process have been<BR>
going<BR>
on for several years – and as it is a process where quite different<BR>
institutional actors are involved, not all of our concerns have been<BR>
received<BR>
with the same “openness” which we would have hoped for. But I<BR>
cannot<BR>
easily<BR>
accept to say that ICANN is “not willing to provide a voice to new<BR>
users<BR>
of<BR>
the Internet and Web.”<BR>
<BR>
In 1999, and for some years to follow, there was an effort going on to<BR>
create<BR>
an “individual membership constituency” - which did not lead<BR>
anywhere,<BR>
because it was basically an effort by ONE person trying to decide what<BR>
has to<BR>
happen, and there was no support for this kind of approach in ICANN.<BR>
We,<BR>
in<BR>
the NCUC, received since that time the clear mandate to be a membership<BR>
<BR>
organization of organizations, though we were concerned that this<BR>
excluded<BR>
the possibility for quite a number of individual persons who would<BR>
have<BR>
liked<BR>
to bring their contribution into our fellowship.<BR>
<BR>
Now, when we finally have taken the initiative to remove the<BR>
institutional<BR>
constraints for individuals – and have received the agreement within<BR>
the<BR>
<BR>
ICANN-GNSO restructuring to accept also individual members into the<BR>
NCUC<BR>
(on<BR>
the way into the NCSG) - I see no reason to say that ICANN is “not<BR>
willing to<BR>
provide a voice to new users of the Internet and Web.”<BR>
<BR>
You are among the first coming into this door we have worked to open.<BR>
<BR>
I cannot comment much on the alternatives proposed by Prof. Cheryl<BR>
Preston –<BR>
presented at a point in time publicly known to have been too late to be<BR>
<BR>
integrated and sent to the ICANN board – after a draft had been<BR>
discussed in<BR>
different stages in the constituency, and we finally had a text which<BR>
had<BR>
received wide consensus and was sent on.<BR>
<BR>
Let me close with some content concern, and not only with structures.<BR>
But it<BR>
is again a very complex, not a simple situation we face.<BR>
<BR>
Freedom, justice, and openness have been extremely important elements<BR>
for my<BR>
work in Cambodia – in a context where the technological, economic,<BR>
and<BR>
political situation is VERY different from the one in most of the<BR>
north-Atlantic countries. It was for me personally always important to<BR>
have –<BR>
in the NCUC fellowship – a group of people from where I could get<BR>
support and<BR>
inspiration for our situation here – even when we were in ICANN<BR>
encountering<BR>
challenges which were not only encouraging for our efforts in Cambodia<BR>
(I am<BR>
editing, since more than 10 years, a review of the Cambodian language<BR>
press<BR>
in English). The media – not only the printed press – is in an<BR>
unending<BR>
struggle to find ways to communicate freely without intervention. The<BR>
discussions about freedom of expression – in ICANN, including in the<BR>
domain<BR>
name system - provide always a context for me here, as they have for<BR>
the<BR>
<BR>
society in the USA. I just read, before writing to you, the following<BR>
article, a kind of homework for the GNSO Councillors from the NCUC<BR>
–<BR>
and<BR>
this work is being done, of course, on the basis of discussion in the<BR>
constituency. Therefore I hope for some extensive comments back:<BR>
<BR>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30google-t.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30google-t.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all</a><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Whatever the time is at your end when you get this – here it is now<BR>
02:50. But<BR>
I wrote now because of a deep concern.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Norbert<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Norbert Klein<BR>
Phnom Penh/Cambodia<BR>
PGP key-id 0x0016D0A9<BR>
<BR>
If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us<BR>
regularly -<BR>
you can find something new every day:<BR>
<BR>
<a href="http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com">http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com</a> (English)<BR>
<a href="http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com">http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com</a> (Khmer)<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>-- <BR>
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,<BR>
Lecturer in Law,<BR>
GigaNet Membership Chair,<BR>
University of Strathclyde,<BR>
The Lord Hope Building,<BR>
141 St. James Road,<BR>
Glasgow, G4 0LT,<BR>
UK<BR>
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306<BR>
email: <a href="k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk">k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk</a> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>