<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16825" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV>Hi everyone</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Just 3 quick observations for now (and yes, I know this is a public list) -</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1. Whatever happened to the SIC's willingness to discuss potential appointees with those of us non-commercial individuals/users/organizations that expressed willingness to discuss/negotiate the SIC-Staff draft Charter in Sydney? Weren't there then, and up to 24 July, more than 3 willing, qualified persons - including new entrants to ICANN, technical folks, researchers, consumer representatives and individuals from multiple countries - whose willingness to serve was known to the SIC before the Board meeting?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2. It doesn't seem to matter how much, quickly or diverse the NCUC membership is, grows or becomes. Despite being presented with actual statistics of membership growth and diversity, the current NCUC is still not diverse or representative enough. By whose measure? And using what criteria?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>3. The current NCUC has clearly and publicly expressed welcome and support for a consumer constituency. Indeed, we reached out to Beau Brendler in Mexico and in Sydney, amongst other people and groups. We have always said, and Beau has also noted, that a consumer constituency fits very well within the NCSG framework - but it is not up to NCUC to approve such a constituency. Aside from reaching out to consumer representatives (which we have done) and encouraging them to form a constituency and join NCUC/NCSG, what more are we supposed to do?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>4. Ironically, the ICANN call for Statements of Interest for non-commercials in relation to the three new NCSG seats is something ICANN could and should have easily done for/with the existing NCUC, since the Board has always known (and expressed sympathy for) the lack of resources that unpaid volunteers face as a major obstacle toward outreach. Perhaps the only inescapable conclusion from all this is that only those non-commercial persons/entities that meet with the Board's and/or the Staff's approval can constitute worthy participants in the ICANN environment? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>5. I am touched by and glad for Avri's statement, and welcome her - and others like her - whose principles and hard work are beyond reproach. It saddens me tremendously that, with the JPA issue and a new CEO, ICANN elects at this moment to close down dialogue with those non-commercial participants that have worked so very hard to be more inclusive and open to negotiation with everyone in the ICANN community. We need to mobilize now, to highlight the prejudices and inequities that are entrenched within the ICANN process. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mary</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#800080>Mary W S Wong</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>Professor of Law</DIV>
<DIV>Franklin Pierce Law Center</DIV>
<DIV>Two White Street</DIV>
<DIV>Concord, NH 03301</DIV>
<DIV>USA</DIV>
<DIV>Email: <A href="mailto:mwong@piercelaw.edu">mwong@piercelaw.edu</A></DIV>
<DIV>Phone: 1-603-513-5143</DIV>
<DIV>Webpage: <A href="http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php">http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php</A></DIV>
<DIV>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: <A href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</A></DIV><BR><BR>>>> Adam Peake <ajp@GLOCOM.AC.JP> 8/6/2009 3:37 AM >>><BR>Why not compromise. Attempt to restart a process <BR>where the SIC and NCUC charters are considered <BR>side by side.<BR><BR>The NCUC has three council seats.<BR><BR>The NCUC does not have membership (or significant <BR>membership) from international consumer <BR>organizations (noted in many recent comments from <BR>the board and others as a missing constituent in <BR>all of ICANN), nor for the largest academic <BR>communities, libraries, R&D, etc. So why not <BR>accept the interim and offer to work with the <BR>board to help identify possible candidates from <BR>such groups, and to try and bring those groups <BR>into the NCUC or to encourage them to form a <BR>constituency (as consumer groups seem to be <BR>trying to do, can NCUC help them?)<BR><BR>And then look to negotiate differences between <BR>the charters. Can we accept that councillors <BR>could be selected through a hybrid constituency <BR>based model, where a general membership selects a <BR>slate which is then voted on by constituencies in <BR>an Executive Committee? (just an idea...) And at <BR>the same time emphasize that policy must be <BR>developed in a bottom-up fashion at the <BR>stakeholder-wide level. Can we come up with <BR>specific rule based criteria for the creation of <BR>new constituencies (no one will apply to the <BR>vague process in the SIC charter, it is no better <BR>than what we've had since the GNSO was created.)<BR><BR>I think we were set back from discussing workable <BR>compromises when the SIC draft was put forward <BR>and the NCUC draft effectively taken off from <BR>discussion. Ours and the community's responses <BR>were made to the SIC draft, but we did not <BR>discuss and modify in response to comments the <BR>NCUC draft. Where there was criticism of the NCUC <BR>draft was on the static position of some months <BR>ago.<BR><BR>I have heard some people assert that the NCUC has <BR>never shown any willingness to compromise from <BR>its criticism of anything that it hadn't written, <BR>yet claiming that the NCUC documents were still <BR>open to negotiation -- so a public attempt to <BR>engage in negotiation would at least put this to <BR>the test.<BR><BR>Think there are two options: some form of appeal <BR>to the Board's decisions, i.e. reconsideration, <BR>obmudsman (who has the power to open all kinds of <BR>email trails, discover what documents were <BR>presented, what was said), or independent review. <BR>Or more sensible, offer to negotiate, offer some <BR>compromise.<BR><BR>Adam (not on behalf of GLOCOM NCUC member, or <BR>ALAC of which I a member. Purely personal <BR>observation.)<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>>Here is ICANN's announcement calling for <BR>>Statements of Interest from those interested in <BR>>volunteering to be appointed by the board to <BR>>represent noncommercial users:<BR>> <BR>><<A href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05aug09-en.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05aug09-en.htm</A>><A href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05aug09-en.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05aug09-en.htm</A><BR>><BR>>"... Of the four new Stakeholder Group Charters <BR>>approved by the Board last week, this temporary <BR>>seat selection by the Board is unique to the <BR>>NCSG. It reflects a fundamental view that the <BR>>current non-commercial community participation <BR>>in the GNSO is not yet sufficiently diverse or <BR>>robust to select all six of the NCSG's allocated <BR>>Council seats (as was originally intended by the <BR>>Board's GNSO Improvements initiative)...." <BR>><BR>>ICANN claims we are not "sufficiently diverse or <BR>>robust enough to select all six" GNSO Council <BR>>seats. Yet NCUC represents 137 noncommercial <BR>>organizations and individuals from 48 countries. <BR>> Our membership has increased by 205% since the <BR>>parity principle was established. There never <BR>>was any bar for us to meet - that rhetoric was <BR>>invented by the commercial constituencies and <BR>>selectively adopted by ICANN staff to justify <BR>>why 137 noncommercial organizations and <BR>>individuals are not entitled to elect their own <BR>>representation.<BR>><BR>>Too bad noncommercial users will not be given <BR>>electoral parity with commercial users as the <BR>>BGC originally promised. Another empty promise, <BR>>another rigged process. ICANN is more <BR>>aggressive than ever in squeezing out <BR>>noncommercial users in policy development. So <BR>>sad.<BR>><BR>>Robin<BR>><BR>><BR>>IP JUSTICE<BR>>Robin Gross, Executive Director<BR>>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA<BR>>p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451<BR>>w: <BR>><<A href="http://www.ipjustice.org">http://www.ipjustice.org</A>><A href="http://www.ipjustice.org">http://www.ipjustice.org</A> <BR>> e: <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>robin@ipjustice.org<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>