<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">More<br><div><br><div>Begin forwarded message:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>From: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">William Drake <<a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a>><br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>Date: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">October 18, 2009 11:18:41 AM GMT+02:00<br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>To: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">Roberto Gaetano <<a href="mailto:roberto@icann.org">roberto@icann.org</a>><br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>Cc: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">"'At-Large Worldwide'" <<a href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>>, "'ALAC Working List'" <<a href="mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org">alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>><br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1);"><b>Subject: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;"><b>Re: [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders?</b><br></span></div><br><div>Hi Roberto,<br><br>Thanks for your reply, glad we're talking about this stuff, helpful.<br><br>On Oct 18, 2009, at 1:01 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Bill,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">We might have a communication problem.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">What I meant, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">- the NCUC was against the creation of constituencies as groups that had<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">automatic voting seat(s) in the Council<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">- groups did not see any interest in doing the work of creating<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">constituencies if they were guaranteed no seats in the Council<br></blockquote><br>If that is what you meant, then yes indeed we have a communication problem. You wrote,<br><br>"But the main point for the SIC to maintain the concept of constituency, against the open opposition of NCUC," which sounded to me like you were saying the main point for the SIC is to maintain the concept of constituency, against the open opposition of NCUC. Sorry for my confusion.<br><br>Bear in mind, I'e been hearing this kind of thing for months now, including from board members in MC, and there's list traffic this morning indicating that others here were not clear on the point. So especially at a time when some ALAC folks are proposing constituencies, it's a cause for concern when someone in your position of authority appears to be saying NCUC opposes the whole concept. That would be the RySG, not us. (BTW, why did SIC ok RySG eliminating constituencies in their charter? I never understood the rationale for not having harmonized structures across SGs, and it makes the misimpression about NCUC's charter which explicitly provides for constituencies seem all the more odd.)<br><br>Entirely separate from the principal of constituencies are two issues:<br><br>*Whether council seats should be hard wired. On this we agree with the SIC, as you know. I understand there are folks here who feel differently, and say nobody will want to do the work of launching a constituency if they don't automatically get a council seat. I'm not convinced that's true---I know I and others I've talked to wouldn't feel that's necessarily a barrier, if per the NCUC proposed charter constituencies could run candidates in an open election and in all likelihood get one that way---but I understand the concern and that's a design issue we ought to be able to talk through and build confidence.<br><br>*Whether constituencies should be formed soon under the SIC/staff transitional charter, rather than waiting a little while until a mutually satisfactory final arrangement can be arrived at. We remain concerned that doing it under the SIC/staff version would lock that in and make a joint review and revision impossible. The timing here is up to you folks on the board, not us. We'd prefer to resolve things with you ASAP, and constituency launches could then proceed as soon as there are viable proposals. Unfortunately, I think NCUC folks have contributed to confusion on this point by saying the review should happen within a year, which some have processed as meaning we want to wait a year before anything can be launched. Within a year doesn't mean in a year, we can do this as soon as you're ready.<br><br><br><blockquote type="cite">Is this a fair representation of the reality, yes or no? If no, I apologize,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">as I did really miss something important. If, on the other hand, the answer<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">is yes, I stand behind my whole post.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The question, as I understood it, was to find a balance that could have<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">taken into account to the maximum extent possible these two different and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">apparently radically opposed positions. The fact that the solution is being<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">shot from both sides confirms that it was not an easy problem, and that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">positions were really opposed. The point is now where we go from here. Can<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">we discuss and see if this is a solution that can work or not?<br></blockquote><br>I sure hope so, and we are looking forward to meeting with the board and getting the process started. But let's make sure we understand the positions and the differences between them accurately, that'll help facilitate things a productive dialogue.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To make statements that imply that SIC has not read the NCUC charters is not<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">helpful.<br></blockquote><br>Didn't mean to imply this, but rather that if you believe NCUC opposes constituencies as you appeared to be saying, you might look again at the NCUC charter which endorses constituencies and suggests mechanisms for their formation and collaboration.<br><br><blockquote type="cite">We have two possibilities, one is to get together and to make it<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">work, the other one is to insist that the bad and ugly SIC has imposed a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">top-down solution against the will of the masses.<br></blockquote><br>I didn't characterize the SIC as bad and ugly. It is unquestionably true though that the SIC imposed a solution that was opposed by NCUC's 80 organizational and 87 individual members and a wide array of non-member supporters and was supported by 3 people. If you don't like calling this top down, ok, give me another term for something done by the board over the strenuous opposition of the community in question. I'm not hung up on language, just facts.<br><br><blockquote type="cite">I see these as alternative<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">positions, for the simple fact that accepting and propagating the latter<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">means not to have understood (or to pretend not having understood) the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">amount of consultation, negotiation and compromise that went into the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">solution, which is the exact opposite of having imposed a top-down view.<br></blockquote><br>Unfortunately, the consultation, negotiation and compromise didn't really involve NCUC. But we can still do that, and very much look forward to working with you in Seoul and beyond to arrive at a lasting solution that is supported by the actually existing NC community.<br><br>All the best,<br><br>Bill<br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">-----Original Message-----<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch]<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Sent: Saturday, 17 October 2009 11:58<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">To: Roberto Gaetano<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Cc: At-Large Worldwide; ALAC Working List<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Subject: Re: [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders?<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Hi Roberto,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">May I just correct once again one whopping bit of bad info, please.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Oct 17, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Beau,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">By the way, is it true what I heard that the three newly appointed<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">GNSO people have now been hard-wired in to two-year terms? I don't<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">really see a constituency model working under those circumstances.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Who's going to join a constituency if they have to wait<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">two years to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">be able to directly elect a representative? No consumer group I am<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">aware of is going to want to do that.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I think that we will need to clarify many things in Seoul, one of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">which is the reason for certain decisions of the SIC.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">For instance, the SIC has decided, after long discussion,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">not to have<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">an automatic link between creation of a constituency and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">establishment<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of a seat in the Council. The reasons against this position include<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">what you correctly point out, i.e. that it will be more<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">difficult to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">get people's interest if there's no immediate<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">representation in terms<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of voting rights.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">However, there are also reasons for taking this approach.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">One of these<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">is that we have to avoid the "frivolous" creation of constituencies<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">for the simple purpose of getting a vote. A bit like create empty<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">shells as registrars to have a higher firing power for getting<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">valuable names.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Another<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">observation is that in the "old" council it was exactly the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">fact that<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the creation of a new constituency would have altered the voting<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">balance that de facto prevented the creation of any new<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">constituency<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">in 10 years.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">But the main point for the SIC to maintain the concept of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">constituency, against the open opposition of NCUC, but to keep it<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">without an automatic<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">NCUC is NOT and has NEVER been against the concept of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">constituencies, period. I do not understand what the purpose<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">would be in telling ALAC people something about NCUC that is<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">patently untrue, but it really does not facilitate trust<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">building and the collegial resolution of the issue. The<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">charter NCUC submitted, and which you set aside without<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">comment, has an page of clear language about the formation<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and operation of constituencies in Section 2.3.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/ncsg-petition">http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/ncsg-petition</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">-charter.pdf<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> I would encourage you to read it if you have not. A few<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">key bits of note include:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">-------------<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*Constituencies are self-defined groupings of NCSG members organized<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">around some shared policy goals (e.g. consumer protection, privacy);<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">shared identity (e.g., region or country of origin, gender, language<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">group); type of organization (e.g., research networks, philanthropic<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">foundations) - or any other grouping principle that might affect<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">members' stance on domain names policy.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*There is no requirement that NCSG members join a constituency.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*When at least 3 organizational members or at least 10<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">individual NCSG<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">members volunteer to join the Constituency on the public list within<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">two months of the publication of the notification of intent the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">prospective Constituency becomes eligible to schedule a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">meeting (which<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">can be either in person or online).<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*The eligible constituency holds a public meeting(s) to draft a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">charter and appoint an official representative of the constituency.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The meeting(s) can be online but must be open to observation by the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">general public.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*The proposed constituency charter is submitted to the NCSG Policy<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Committee for ratification.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*Once accepted by the PC the constituency application will be<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">sent to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the ICANN Board for approval. The Board shall also serve as the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">vehicle for appeals to NCSG decisions on the recognition of a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">constituency.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">*Constituencies have a right to: 1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Place one voting<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">representative on<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the Policy Committee; 2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Delegate members to GNSO<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">working groups and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">task forces; 3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Issue statements on GNSO Policy<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Development Processes<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">which are included in the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">official NCSG response, but marked as constituency positions,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and not<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">necessarily the position of NCSG as a whole.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">-------------<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I do not know how this possibly can be characterized as<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">opposition to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the concept of a constituency.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The principal difference with the charter you've imposed on us, as<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">we've explained time and again, is that we do not think it<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">wise to set<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">up constituencies as purely self-regarding silos that compete<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">against<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">each other for council seats, recognition and influence, and thereby<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">spend their time fighting and jockeying for position rather than<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">working together to advance noncommercial public interest<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">perspectives<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">in ICANN. We think it is better for constituencies to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">collaborate in<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">an integrated community. Hence, we did not think it sensible<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to hard<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">wire council seats (which would get absurd if the number of<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">constituencies exceeds six, as it hopefully will...we're glad you<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">agreed on this), and instead suggested that GNSO Council<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Representatives be elected directly by all NCSG members in an annual<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">SG-wide vote. To secure a council seat, a constituency on consumer<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">protection, registrants, privacy, gender, freedom of speech or<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">whatever else would simply have to be a vibrant group that puts<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">forward a candidate and vision that others find persuasive. Given<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">that noncommercial people tend to share certain broad values and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">priorities, I'm hard pressed to imagine that, for example, a solid<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">consumer constituency that actually comprises noncommercial<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">actors and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">advocates for the public interest would have a hard time getting<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">support from people who care about privacy, speech, and so on. So<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">it'd be a matter of persuading colleagues rather than having a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">birthright fiefdom within which one does one's own thing and ignores<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">everyone else.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">We understand that questions have been raised about voting<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">formula and<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">whether it might make sense to put in place mechanisms to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">prevent the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">'capture' of the council, and we've said we're open to viable<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">suggestions on that score. Have yet to hear one. One might add that<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">if NCUC's proposed charter had been approved and constituency<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">formation were made as easy as we'd hoped, the NCUC itself<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">would have<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">ceased to exist, and those of our current 80 organizational and 87<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">individual members who wanted to off and form constituencies on<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">privacy, gender, or whatever else would have done so. So there'd be<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">no NCUC to be capturing anything in the first place. In contrast,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">under the SIC charter, NCUC would be nuts to disband, inter alia<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">because it'd leave our members homeless, especially the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">individuals.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Hard to see how that would be good for ICANN.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">voting power, against the obvious concerns of who wants to build new<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">constituencies, is the leit-motiv that has guided the whole<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">process<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">review: move the focus away from the vote, which is by its nature<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">divisive,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">onto the consensus building process.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">New constituencies will not have the right to appoint their "own"<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">councillors, but will have the right to participate in WGs<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">and other<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">policy<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">making processes and bodies, will have support from ICANN staff and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">resources to self-organize, will be able to participate<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">with their own<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">representatives in the Executive Committee of the NCSG, etc.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In simple words, what we have tried to do is to create a balance and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">hopefully a possible way to coexist and, in time, to collaborate,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">for all<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the different components of the wide and diverse non-commercial<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">internet<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">community. Somebody on this list has spoken about<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"reconsideration"<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Board's decision. This is surely possible. But what I would<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">propose<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">is to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">try to discuss and understand if what the SIC has proposed<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">can work in<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">practice, although it is not going to be perfect for anybody, before<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">shooting it down and start all over again. This discussion<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">is for me<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">one of<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the main priorities, if not the first priority altogether,<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">in Seoul,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">which<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">as you all know will mark the end of my term as Director.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The ALAC and the NCUC are two big parts of this picture, the only<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">organized<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">bodies in ICANN so far (for non-commercial users), I personally<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">think that<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the first step can be to have a joint discussion in Seoul. Bill's<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">proposal<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of meeting in an event that is not only work, but also<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">social, goes<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">in this<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">sense, methinks.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Here we agree. And I think finding common ground will be a<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">lot easier<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">if ALAC colleagues are not laboring under the false impression that<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">NCUC somehow wants to prevent them or other from forming<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">constituencies, hence the above. Our main concern has been that we<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">first have an opportunity to work out a final, non-divisive charter<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">with the board, after which constituency launches could begin in<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">earnest. In contrast, launching constituencies under the SIC<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">charter<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">would likely lock us into that framework and engender the very<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">fragmentation the meeting is intended to help overcome.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Cheers,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Bill<br></blockquote></blockquote><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#006312"><br></font></div></blockquote></div><br><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -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: 0px; ">***********************************************************<br>William J. Drake<br>Senior Associate<br>Centre for International Governance<br>Graduate Institute of International and<br> Development Studies<br>Geneva, Switzerland<br><a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a><br>www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html<br>***********************************************************<br><br></span>
</div>
<br></body></html>