<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PostalCode"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceType"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceName"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="Street"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="address"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue style='WORD-WRAP: break-word;webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
webkit-line-break: after-white-space'>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Hi Milton, (& list)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>This is a shrewd way of dealing with several
representation tensions in the NCSG system, which are arguably misplaced tensions
when it’s WGs that make policy under the glare of ICANN processes. The
NCSG can be generous in proposing WG topics, without worrying whether there’s
internal multi-stakeholder buy-in. It may be that other SGs prefer to propose
WG topics which toe a party line, but there’s lots to be said for NCSG
promoting pluralism as an ICANN virtue. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>As you point out, it’s not unreasonable
for the NCSG Council members to undertake to vote favourably on a
NCSG-sponsored working group proposal when coming forward from the NCSG after
meeting our 20% threshold. Once it’s open for comment, all NCSG members
can make submissions as they choose, along with the rest of the Net. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Kim<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p><font size=2 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
color:navy'>-----------------------<br>
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Kimberley</st1:City></st1:place> James
Heitman<br>
www.kheitman.com<br>
----------------------- </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Non-Commercial
User Constituency [mailto:<st1:PersonName w:st="on">NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</st1:PersonName>]
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Milton L Mueller<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Monday, 23 February 2009
11:33 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: FW: Follow-Up to NCSG
Charter-Structure Questions</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Robin</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>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.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>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 <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Cheryl
Preston</st1:PersonName>. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>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. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>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. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Milton Mueller<br>
Professor, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Syracuse</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">School</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>
of Information Studies<br>
XS4All Professor, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Delft</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> of Technology<br>
------------------------------<br>
Internet Governance Project:<br>
<a href="http://internetgovernance.org/">http://internetgovernance.org</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabIndex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Robin
Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Sunday, February 22, 2009
7:27 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Milton L Mueller; <st1:PersonName
w:st="on">NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] FW:
Follow-Up to NCSG Charter-Structure Questions</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Thanks, <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Milton</st1:place></st1:City>.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>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.)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>We should revise our draft SG proposal for submission by 1 March
(taking into account the feedback we've received so more). <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Should we schedule a call this week to discuss the submission further?
Any suggestions?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Robin<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>On Feb 21, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><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"><span
style='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;word-spacing:0px'>Hello, all<O:P></O:P></span></font><font
color=black><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>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><font
color=black><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black'><O:P></O:P></span></font>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
color=black face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabIndex=-1>
</span></font></div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 color=black face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:black;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><span
class=apple-converted-space><font size=2 color=black face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:black'> <ST1:PERSONNAME u1:st="on"></span></font></span><font
size=2 color=black face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
color:black'>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 color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black'><br>
<ST1:CITY u1:st="on"><ST1:PLACE u1:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Milton</ST1:PLACE></ST1:CITY></st1:place></st1:City>:<br>
</span></font><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black'>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><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><b><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black;font-weight:bold'>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 color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black'>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><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black'>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.</span></font><font
color=black><span style='color:black'><O:P></O:P><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>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><font color=black><span
style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Garamond><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Garamond;color:black'>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><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><b><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black;font-weight:bold'>Q2: How does a constituency-based model apportion
Council seats among Constituencies when they are of different size?<br>
</span></font></b><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black'>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><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black'>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><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black'>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><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><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 color=black
face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;color:black'><br>
<br>
<br>
</span></font><font color=black><span style='color:black'><O:P></O:P><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><u><font size=3 color=black face=Garamond><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Garamond;color:black;font-weight:bold'>MM’s
Original Email of 6 February, 2009:<br>
</span></font></u></b><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black'>Robert, Denise and Ken<br>
</span></font><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black'>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><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black'>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><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black'>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><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><b><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black;font-weight:bold'>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 color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:
Garamond;color:black'><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> <ST1:PLACE u1:st="on"></span><st1:place
w:st="on">Latin America</ST1:PLACE></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><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black'>I would be very interested to see how you propose to avoid this
problem while staying in the constituency model.<br>
</span></font><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black'>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><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><b><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black;font-weight:bold'>Q2: How does a constituency-based model apportion
Council seats among Constituencies when they are of different size?<br>
</span></font></b><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black'>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><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black'>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><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
</span></font><font color=black face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;
color:black'>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=black><span style='color:black'><O:P></O:P><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Garamond><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Garamond;color:black'>
<hr size=1 width="33%" align=left>
</span></font></div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Garamond><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Garamond;color:black'>[1]</span></font><span
class=apple-converted-space><font color=black><span style='color:black'> </span></font></span><font
color=black><span style='color:black'><#_ftnref><span
class=apple-converted-space> </span></span></font><i><font color=black
face=Garamond><span style='font-family:Garamond;color:black;font-style:italic'>We
would envision an Execeutive Committee comprised of one delegate from each
recognized Constituency.</span></font></i><font color=black><span
style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<O:P></O:P></div>
</div>
</div>
</O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></span>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div><span style='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;word-spacing:0px'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=1 color=black
face=Helvetica><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black'>IP JUSTICE<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black'>Robin Gross,
Executive Director<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:address w:st="on"><st1:Street w:st="on"><font size=1
color=black face=Helvetica><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;
color:black'>1192 Haight Street</span></font></st1:Street><font size=1
color=black face=Helvetica><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;
color:black'>, <st1:City w:st="on">San Francisco</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st="on">CA</st1:State>
<st1:PostalCode w:st="on">94117</st1:PostalCode> <st1:country-region
w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region></span></font></st1:address><font size=1
color=black face=Helvetica><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black'>p: +1-415-553-6261
f: +1-415-462-6451<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black'>w: <a
href="http://www.ipjustice.org">http://www.ipjustice.org</a>
e: <a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black'><br>
<br>
</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</span>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>