<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3492" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; webkit-nbsp-mode: space; webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=657092214-23022009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Robin</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=657092214-23022009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I will try to have a draft that incorporates the reasonable
staff comments and some new ideas (thresholds for working group formation) that
came out of our discussions with ALAC/NARALO people by the middle of this week.
If we could schedule a call sometime late evening EST this week I could
squeeze it into my schedule.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=657092214-23022009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Let me
explain this new idea. Brenden Kuerbis actually came up with it, and it solves
many problems related to minority representation under an integrated structure.
It should appeal to "dissenters" within NCUC such as Cheryl Preston.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=657092214-23022009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=657092214-23022009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The
idea is that when a certain threshold of the membership or the policy committee
wants to form a GNSO Working Group on a policy issue dear to them, then ALL NCSG
Council representatives must vote to support the formation of that WG.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=657092214-23022009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=657092214-23022009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Example: A constituency or faction within the NCUC wants to promote
policy X. The first step is to get the GNSO Council to create a WG on X. Once a
WG is formed, any supporters of X can join that WG and work on the issue, it
doesn't matter whether they have a Council seat or not. So we have a vote in the
SG or the Policy Committee on whether to form the WG and if a certain low
threshold is met - say, 20% - then ALL of the NCSG Councillors are obliged to
vote for the formation of that WG, whether they like the idea or not.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=657092214-23022009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=657092214-23022009>Of course, forming the WG does not mean that the
supporters of X will get exactly the policy they want. But NCSG cannot guarantee
that in any event -- all the other factions, constituencies and SGs will be
involved in any WG. It does, however, guarantee that minorities within the NCSG
have a chance to get their ideas past the Council and into the WG phase.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=657092214-23022009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=657092214-23022009></SPAN><FONT size=2>Milton
Mueller<BR>Professor, Syracuse University School of Information
Studies<BR>XS4All Professor, Delft University of
Technology<BR>------------------------------<BR>Internet Governance
Project:<BR><A
href="http://internetgovernance.org/">http://internetgovernance.org</A><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org]
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, February 22, 2009 7:27 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Milton L
Mueller; NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS]
FW: Follow-Up to NCSG Charter-Structure Questions<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Thanks, Milton.
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>You are right that we have to continue to remind the ICANN staff and
board that the constituency model that the staff is proposing encourages
stake-holder groups to be in a perpetual power struggle within themselves (and
between constituencies) to hold on to counsel seats. The way staff is
trying to organize the GNSO it appears they are trying to disempower the GNSO
even further by requiring all energies to be consumed in un-ending
administrative tasks and political battles. Too bad. This "GNSO
reform" was a real opportunity for ICANN to reform some of its more nasty
tendencies (like staff dominating the board, the GNSO, etc.)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>We should revise our draft SG proposal for submission by 1 March (taking
into account the feedback we've received so more). </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Should we schedule a call this week to discuss the submission further?
Any suggestions?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Thanks,</DIV>
<DIV>Robin</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Feb 21, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; webkit-text-stroke-width: 0"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE
name="City"
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE
name="place"
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE
name="PersonName" namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
<DIV class=Section1>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><FONT
face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Hello,
all<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><FONT
face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">You will remember
that I sent questions to the staff questioning the practicality of certain
aspects of their favored model for a NCSG. The good news is that they have
taken the inquiry seriously and responded. The bad news is that, as I
feared, the only way to make their favored model work requires enormous
amounts of organizational overhead – an additional bureaucratic overlay that
creates not only complexity but the possibility of top-down manipulation of
constituency election results. Interestingly, the more workable approaches
start to look a lot like the integrated election process we already
proposed. Read for yourself.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><FONT
face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; TEXT-ALIGN: center"
align=center><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR tabIndex=-1 align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</SPAN></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><B><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">From:</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma"><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><ST1:PERSONNAME w:st="on">Robert
Hoggarth</ST1:PERSONNAME><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>[<A
href="mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org">mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org</A>]<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><BR><ST1:CITY
w:st="on"><ST1:PLACE
w:st="on">Milton</ST1:PLACE></ST1:CITY>:<BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Thank you for your recent
email (below) in which you posed a couple of questions for the Staff
concerning the new Stakeholder Group model. The questions are
challenging and we have done our best to provide what we think are
reasonable recommendations as to how they might be addressed.<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><B><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Q1: How
does a constituency-based model produced balanced geographic representation
in Council seats?<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT></B><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">We envision geographic
diversity as a representational responsibility of each Stakeholder Group
(SG) in fulfilling its role of allocating GNSO Council seats to member
Constituencies. We are currently working with the General Counsel to
draft Bylaw amendments consistent with that
approach.<BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Using your example, if the SG has six seats
and three Constituencies, it may choose to allocate seats evenly although it
would not be required to do so. In the simplest case, if there are two
seats assigned to each Constituency, the SG would alert its members that it
needs to have all five geographic regions represented with no more than two
Councilors coming from the same one. In order to accomplish that goal,
the SG might ask certain Constituencies to produce its candidates from a
limited set of geographic regions.<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>Another option might be to
solicit a larger candidate pool, e.g. three from each Constituency or nine
total (voted from within), and choose those six that best satisfy the SG’s
geographic diversity needs. In a situation where the number of Council
seats to be allocated is not evenly divisible, the SG might decide to
designate certain seats to specific geographic regions and candidates from
various Constituencies could campaign for those available slots.<FONT
color=navy><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><FONT
face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">MM commentary: note
the last line: “designating certain seats to specific geographic regions”
and allowing “candidates from various Constituencies [to] campaign for those
available slots” sounds suspiciously close to an integrated, Stakeholder
Group-wide election, which is what we proposed! In other words, Council
candidates would have to appeal for votes from across the entire SG, not
just inside their constituency<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><FONT
face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">We
believe that the SG, working collaboratively with its member Constituencies,
can continue to ensure that its GNSO Councilors reflect a profile consistent
with the organization’s geographic diversity goals.<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><B><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Q2: How
does a constituency-based model apportion Council seats among Constituencies
when they are of different size?<BR></SPAN></FONT></B><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">While the decisions may be
challenging, we think that one principal role of the SG’s leadership team[
1] <see footnote below> is to establish the very criteria (and
methodology) that would allow such apportionment determinations to be made.
A SG could utilize factors other than size, for example, geographic
diversity and possibly others. To take a concrete example, if there
were six seats and four constituencies, the SG could end up with a 2-2-1-1
or 3-1-1-1 configuration utilizing whatever decision-making criteria it
adopted (and had approved, via its Charter, by the Board). You raise
the possibility of gaming the system and, of course, such behavior is
theoretically possible in any proposed model including your own. In
that circumstance, the SG leadership should reexamine its methodology and
adjust, as necessary, to minimize any undesirable outcomes. Once the
seats are allocated, if a new constituency is subsequently admitted to the
SG by the Board, we recommend that, at its next annual cycle, the SG
reallocate seats taking into consideration five members vs. four. The
most likely Council member configuration, given the limited combinations,
would be 2-1-1-1. We do make the tacit assumption that any
Constituency approved by the Board would have satisfied ICANN’s fundamental
stakeholder representational requirements and, thus, would be entitled to at
least one seat on the Council.<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">In terms of oversight, we
believe that the Board’s role will be not only to ensure that each of the SG
Charters is structured in a fair, open, and transparent manner; but, it will
also likely monitor SG activities, especially in the period immediately
after initial implementation.<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">We would be happy to
continue discussing this matter with you and, of course, we would welcome
another set of questions if there are still unresolved issues in your
mind.<BR> <BR>Regards,<BR>Denise Michel<BR><BR>[1]
<#_ftnref><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: italic">We would envision an Execeutive Committee
comprised of one delegate from each recognized Constituency.<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></I></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
color=navy><SPAN style="COLOR: navy">MM comment: This proposal creates a
potential nightmare. It requires a group of delegates from each constituency
to fight among themselves, with no pre-set criteria, to decide who gets how
many Council seats. Unacceptable, and unnecessary. In our proposal, size
differences among constituencies are automatically reflected in voting
totals for Council seats. There is no need for top-down, negotiated
allocations. Those negotiations create all the rigidities that the Board
Governance Committee was trying to get rid of, and present all kinds of
opportunities for abuse. Even when they are not abused, they will consume
enormous amounts of time. It is apparent that ICANN’s professional staff –
which gets paid to do this work – still does not appreciate the way in which
imposing additional layers of bureaucracy and a constant need to contend and
negotiation for power inside a SG saps the energy of noncommercial groups
and prevents them from doing the real work of policy development. I ask for
your support to tell the staff that this is not an acceptable option.<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><BR><BR></SPAN></FONT><B><U><FONT face=Arial
color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></U></B></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><B><U><FONT
face=Garamond size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">MM’s
Original Email of 6 February, 2009:<BR></SPAN></FONT></U></B><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Robert, Denise and
Ken<BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Thanks a lot for your valuable feedback on our
draft Charter (v4.0). It is clear that we are making progress, although
there is a long way to go.<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">In respect to some of your
questions or requests for explanation, let me turn the tables on you a bit.
The presumption in many of these exchanges is that there's something
complicated or "different" about what we are proposing, and that the
"constituency-based SG model" is straightforward and poses no problems. In
many ways, however, an integrated SG structure is far simpler, and we have
no idea how a constituency model would work even if we thought it desirable
to implement it.<BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Let me give you two examples. I will pose them
in the form of questions because it genuinely would like to have answers
from you or any other defender of the constituency-based SG
model.<BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><B><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Q1: How does a
constituency-based model produced balanced geographic representation in
Council seats?<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT></B><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><BR>Think about this.
Let's say there are 3 independent constituencies in a SG, and each of them
elects 2 Council seats without reference to the other. So Constituency A
elects (in accord with its own geog. representation rules) a person from
North American and a person from Latin America; Constituency B elects a
person from North America and a person from Latin America; and Constituency
C elects a person from North America and another from<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><ST1:PLACE w:st="on">Latin
America</ST1:PLACE>. End result: each constituency has, on its own, produced
as much geographic diversity as it possibly could, and yet the end result
could be that only two world regions are represented on the Council.<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">I would be very interested
to see how you propose to avoid this problem while staying in the
constituency model.<BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">An integrated SG model, by contrast, can
impose proportions on the six seats as a whole, thereby ensuring that most
if not all regions are represented.<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><B><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Q2: How
does a constituency-based model apportion Council seats among Constituencies
when they are of different size?<BR></SPAN></FONT></B><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Let's suppose there is an
"old constituency" that has 50 members, and a "new" constituency that starts
and gets recognized by the Board, and has only 10 initial members (or even
less). How many Council seats does each constituency get? Do they inherently
get the same number of seats simply by virtue of the fact that they are
constituencies? Or does their representation on the Council reflect their
relative size? If the latter, who decides what allocation principle is used,
when there is no pre-established SG decision-making method? And once Council
seats depend on membership size, what is to stop one constituency from
extending membership in an overly easy way, regardless of appropriate
criteria, to inflate its relative size? Will the Board monitor this?<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">These questions are not
impossible to answer, but they obviously impose a very complex layer of
organization, monitoring and procedure that an integrated SG model does not
have to worry about.<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>Frankly, Bob and Denise, I
could produce about a dozen more questions like this. But let's see how you
do with these two first.<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR></SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">My point is to put this
discussion of SG models on a more solid footing with an equal burden of
proof. If you can convince us that a constituency-based model handles such
basic and obvious issues as well as an integrated model,we'd be more
inclined to change our view.<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>--MM</SPAN></FONT><FONT
color=navy><SPAN style="COLOR: navy"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><FONT
face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">
<HR align=left width="33%" SIZE=1>
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><FONT
face=Garamond size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">[1]</SPAN></FONT><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><#_ftnref><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">We would envision an
Execeutive Committee comprised of one delegate from each recognized
Constituency.</SPAN></FONT></I><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; webkit-text-stroke-width: 0">
<DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline><BR
class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>IP JUSTICE</DIV>
<DIV>Robin Gross, Executive Director</DIV>
<DIV>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA</DIV>
<DIV>p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451</DIV>
<DIV>w: <A href="http://www.ipjustice.org">http://www.ipjustice.org</A>
e: <A
href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</A></DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline></SPAN><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline></DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>