For what it's worth I wrote a post on my blog about ICANN free speech issues and the importance of including non-commercial voices, aimed at people who know little or nothing about the IRT, NCUC, or how ICANN works.<div>
<br><div><a href="http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/07/icann-and-free-speech.html">http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/07/icann-and-free-speech.html</a><br><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>
Rebecca<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Robin Gross <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
Bill,<div><br></div><div>You are hired as my editor! Thanks very much!!</div><div><br></div><div>I'll get these points into the document.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Robin</div><div><br></div><div><br>
<div><div>On Jul 14, 2009, at 12:12 AM, William Drake wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">Hi Robin,<div><br></div><div>This is very useful, thanks for doing it. </div><div><br></div><div>Don't know whether you are open to considering amendments, but in the event you are there's a couple points you might consider amplifying/clarifying to strengthen the argument, particularly for outreach to folks who are not already following this closely.</div>
<div><br><div><div class="im"><div>On Jul 14, 2009, at 2:04 AM, Robin Gross wrote:</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div class="im"><div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div><div>Board Appointed (top-down) vs. Elected (bottom-up) Represent ion on GNSO Council</div>
<div><br></div></div><div class="im"><div>Specifically, beginning with the Seoul ICANN Meeting in October 2009, noncommercial users and commercial users are each supposed to have elected 6 representatives to the GNSO Council. However, as a result of back channel lobbying by the commercial constituencies who lost the advantage in numbers of councilors, the 3 new GNSO Council seats that should have gone up for election to noncommercial users, will instead become board appointments. </div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Aside from a general sense that reps should be elected rather than appointed, some readers might not get what the problem is here. Might it be useful to add a sentence addressing the possibility of non-representative reps dictated by staff/board, fragmentation of SG cohesion, etc? Should it be noted that the appointments are supposed to be for just the first cycle?<div class="im">
<br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>ICANN Defies Public Comment and Imposes Stranglehold Charter Model</div><div><br></div><div>What did ICANN do in response to the public comment it received and the global consensus against the stranglehold charter model proposed by CP80? ICANN adopted the stranglehold charter model for noncommercial users, defying the unanimous public support expressed for the charter drafted by noncommercial users that was created through a consensus process.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>Wouldn't it be good for this paragraph to describe precisely what the nature of the stranglehold is with the staff version? You say above that CP80s' would put NC "in endless competition among factionalized constituencies, constantly fighting over scarce resources and representation on ICANN's GNSO Council," but readers who've not read CP80s and the staff's against each other might not get just what you're contending the current version would do.<div class="im">
<br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>ICANN's Sneaky Move to Keep Plans Hidden</div><div><br></div><div>On 23 June 2009, when ICANN finally released its proposed charter to noncommercial users, in addition to the charter being an entirely different different structure than the one created by the consensus process, ICANN's charter also omitted to include the most important section 5 which deals with management of the NCSG and in particular, representation on the GNSO Policy Council. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>I am a little confused by this, so others may be too. Presumably the text staff has posted for comment is the "official" version being considered. What exactly is the status of section 5, then? <div class="im">
<br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>Only after explicitly requesting to see the omitted section, was NCUC provided section 5 from ICANN with the understanding that it is staff's proposal for governing the NCSG. One will not find ICANN's proposed section 5 in its NCSG charter published on the ICANN website, but it can read be read here -- and it must be read together with the ICANN-drafted NCSG charter for it be clear what sneakiness is at play. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>The "it can read be read here" has a link on your blog, but in the ascii version sent to the listservs there's no link, so readers cannot see what you're talking about. Moreover, even if they go to your blog and follow the link, the description of voting rules etc might leave them unclear as to just what the problem is. Wouldn't it make sense to quote the source and describe the problem a little? Otherwise, asking people to "tell ICANN" etc might not work as well.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Just some thoughts, make of them what you will.</div><div><br></div><div>Should I send it to the council list to tweak some beaks?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div>
<br></div></div></blockquote></div><div class="im"><br><div> <span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div>
<br><br></div><div><br></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" target="_blank">http://www.ipjustice.org</a> e: <a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a></div>
<br></span><br> </div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Rebecca MacKinnon<br>Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org<br>Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong<br>
<br>UK: +44-7759-863406<br>USA: +1-617-939-3493<br>HK: +852-6334-8843<br>Mainland China: +86-13710820364<br><br>E-mail: <a href="mailto:rebecca.mackinnon@gmail.com">rebecca.mackinnon@gmail.com</a><br>Blog: <a href="http://RConversation.blogs.com">http://RConversation.blogs.com</a><br>
Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/rmack">http://twitter.com/rmack</a><br>Friendfeed: <a href="http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack">http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack</a><br>
</div></div></div>