Sometimes I can't help but wonder if ICANN inc. is any more than a venture capitalist mindset outfit, interested largely on its own <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">bottom-line and the continued health and strengthening of financial well-being of its commercial stakeholders, with "global public interest" tag/label conveniently used as a PR shop front? Engages in ritual ITU bashing since that is its only major threat to the status-quo? Always guaranteed to succeed as "a better option" since *all* governments authority are feared, globally. I ask, would it not be useful to also pursue Civil Society participation at ITU also. Non-Commercials having two options is better that only one. Someone one told me that when arguing from a terribly weakened position, it often helps to consider, "an enemy of your enemy is your friend." just thinking out aloud here...<div>
<div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Norbert Klein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nhklein@gmx.net">nhklein@gmx.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font face="Arial, sans-serif">For a
long time I was watching and waiting: all the questions and arguments
against splitting NCSG had been raised properly – why should I add
my voice? But all this did not seem to lead to any substantial
response from those proposing the creation of NPOC. When I say
“substantial” I mean: in direct response to specific, direct
questions.</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in"><font color="#000000"><font face="Arial, sans-serif">Thanks
to Milton for summing up the concerns raised, looking back on a
history (I have been involved and representing an NGO in Cambodia
among the non-commercials of ICANN since 1999) which is difficult
enough to understand – like the fact
to which Milton points here; I do not believe in re-inventing the
wheel, so I repeat what he wrote:</font></font></p>
<p><font color="#000000"><font size="2"><font face="Courier New">"</font></font><font face="Courier New"><font style="font-size:11pt" size="2">Note
that ICANN Inc. is currently paralyzing new constituency formation in
NCSG because it won’t approve a charter that was approved
overwhelmingly by its noncommercial participants. Note how it uses
the alleged lack of widespread participation in NCUC to manipulate
our representation in GNSO, but ignores a far less diverse showing in
the CSG."</font></font></font></p>
<p><font color="#000000"><font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font size="3">Or,
as
Avri said on NPOC:</font></font></font></p>
<p><font color="#000000"><font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font size="3"><font face="Courier New"><font size="2">"-
does it have a specific non commercial focus on some aspect of ICANN
issues<br>
- does it avoid overlap with existing constituencies<br>
-
is it international in scope</font></font></font></font></font>"<br>
</p>
<p><font color="#000000"><font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font size="3">I
will
take up another point which Bill Drake had raised some time ago –
again, I have not seen any effort to respond to that (if there was a
response to the point, and if I missed it – apologies. Please send
it again. Here, we sometimes miss some mail.</font></font></font></p>
<p><font color="#000000"><font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font size="3">Here
–
that is in Cambodia.<br>
</font></font></font></p>
<p><font color="#000000"><font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font size="3">Bill
had asked:<br>
</font></font></font></p>
<pre><font color="#000000"><font face="Courier New"><font style="font-size:11pt" size="2">"I will simply reiterate what I've been asking for some time
now without ever getting a response. If the</font></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Courier New"><font style="font-size:11pt" size="2">i</font></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="Courier New"><font style="font-size:11pt" size="2">r proposed
members are mostly humanitarian and service provisioning
orgs, what would be the problem with call it the Humanitarian
and Service Provider Organization Constituency, or something
similar? What's wrong with a title that accurately described
the membership and focus, rather than one that attempts to
colonize the broad rubric applicable to all NCSG members
exclusively for a subset thereof?</font></font></font>
"
<font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font size="3">Does anybody really think – I mean also including people on the ICANN
board – that there is a genuine interest among a substantial number of
non-commercial organizations, in the different geographical regions of
ICANN, who have a track record of working together for some time, so
that they now want to have their common not-for-profit cause
(representing commercial entities) formalized in an ICANN related
platform in the NPOC structure?</font></font>
<font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font size="3">But there are many non-commercials and individuals, concerned with
and struggling to get their voices heard - corporately and operationally -
in the field of Internet development, regulations, and use, to strengthen
the stability and security of the Internet (the ICANN raison d'etre) in a
context where we face quite some other kinds of problems, related, for
example, to the freedom of expression on which the member
governments of the UN have agreed – but which are fragile and
under threat in a number of these same countries in our, and in
some other regions of the world. </font></font></pre>
<br>
Norbert Klein<br>
Open Institute<br>
Cambodia<br>
<pre cols="72"></pre>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>regards,<br><br>Alex Gakuru<br><a href="http://www.mwenyeji.com" target="_blank">http://www.mwenyeji.com</a><br>Hosting, surprise yourself! <br>
</div></div>