Elections

[Cheryl Preston]

I have some papers that are in the editing process.  I will bring some
to LA or I can just give you summaries.

As I said, however, that was a point of disclosure as to my view, at
least at the moment.  Maybe the new IFG is the best place to talk about
some global solutions.

My campaign is not to vote for me because you agree with my view on
this or anything else, but because NCUC needs either to have many
alternative views represented or stay out of contested politics
altogether.


Cheryl B. Preston
Edwin M. Thomas
Professor of Law
J. Reuben Clark Law School
Brigham Young University
424 JRCB
Provo, UT 84602
(801) 422-2312
prestonc at lawgate.byu.edu

>>> Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> 10/25/2007 11:01 am >>>
Thanks for the info Cheryl.

I am curious to hear more about how you envision ICANN as a place for
regulating content on the Internet.  How would that work in practice?

Thanks,
Robin


Cheryl Preston wrote:

>I include here a statement of my objectives for NCUC and then a link
to
>a brief bio.
>
>I have worked on issues involving Internet governance and policy for
>only a few years.  After looking at federal and state involvement in
>Internet law, I began writing a series of papers on the history and
>current position of ICANN, and its potential as an organizing force
>around which a global law of Internet governance could be discussed,
>considered and maintained.  When I attended my first NCUC meeting
last
>Spring in San Juan, I was presented with the "Keep the Net Neutral"
>petition NCUC had drafted and sponsored.  It included a statement
>charging ICANN to do everything in its power to impose an absolute
free
>expression value at every level of the DNS system.
>
>I admit that I was rather stunned that the NCUC was so deeply
involved
>in promoting a particular social, political and legal position
regarding
>the role of ICANN.  We were able to work a compromise by striking the
>affirmative charge language in the petition, but the petition and the
>later workshop sponsored by NCUC evidenced a clear commitment to this
>absolutist ideological view.
>
>After that meeting I did considerable investigation about the history
>of the NCUC and the people who have been involved, as well as the
>history and people involved in the larger sphere of those who
advocating
>this position in Internet and other policy debates.  In addition, I
>spoke with my friends and colleagues who have been involved with
other
>constituency groups or with long-time players such as VeriSign.
>
>My personal and professional opinion with respect to ICANN and the
>Internet, both nationally and globally, is very simplistically stated
>as:
>
>(1) Competing values need to be appropriately balanced in this new
>virtual world, just as we have strived to do in the real world in
every
>jurisprudential era;
>
>(2) Even the strongest forms of idealized free speech (i.e. under the
>U.S. First Amendment) are balanced and nuanced by centuries of the
best
>legal minds;
>
>(3) A passionate commitment to the principle of free expression,
>including the right of all people to political and subversive speech,
>does not mean that we must abandon all forms of constraint on the
>Internet;
>
>(4) Having a thoughtful, balanced and realistic view of what few
>extreme forms of speech are more harmful than helpful does not mean
that
>next week we will construct the Chinese Wall, imprison dissidents, or
>squelch all religious freedom;
>
>(5) One issue that deserves study, dialogue and exploration is if we
>can and/or should look for a way to configure the technology,
>traditional and nontraditional forms of regulation, and economic and
>social incentives to give a choice to parents around the world who do
>not want their children educated in sex and human relations by the
kind
>of pornography and obscenity now flooding the Internet; and
>(6) It may be that ICANN might have an appropriate role in supporting
>any kind of eventual resolution to this problem we might someday
devise
>though the good faith dialogue of the global community.
>
>Yes, in short, although I agree with the extreme importance of free
>expression on the Internet and elsewhere, I do not think that now, at
>this early date in the development of the technology, law and culture
of
>this new information society, we should seek to bind ICANN to a
>value/politics laden (and revolutionary and untried) legal position
of
>pushing for unfettered free expression at the expense of all other
>values.
>
>And, yes, I do not believe that we ought to excuse entirely ICANN
from
>the trust and stewardship it has been given over this global resource
>created with the funds of the US public standing for themselves and
for
>all of world’s humanity of this generation and the future.
>
>With that disclosure on the table, my view of NCUC is:
>
>(1) I am confident that the handful of people who have almost
>exclusively run NCUC from the beginning are honest, smart, skilled
and
>devoted.  But, I have researched to the extent I can the backgrounds
and
>views of these actors and the organizations with whom they affiliate.

>These are fine organizations and I do not doubt their good faith or
the
>quality of their intellectual work.  However, they are uniformly of a
>particular social/political viewpoint on critical issues concerning
the
>Internet.  This viewpoint is not representative of the full range of
>noncommercial Internet users, nor of the variety of positions and
causes
>promoted by the many nonprofit organizations focused specifically on
the
>Internet in the US - not to mention such users and organizations in
the
>wide range of countries around the globe.
>
>(2)  I believe that NCUC should not be an advocacy group for same the
>reasons that the IGF has determined that their dynamic coalitions not
be
>advocacy groups.  Moreover, NCUC absolutely should not be used as a
tool
>for the advocacy of a single, highly contested position just because
the
>actors who became involved in the beginning (before most of the world
>even knew there was such a thing as ICANN or NCUC) share a particular
>view.  Nor should it be an advocacy group for my position or any
other.
>I have heard, but conducted no objective study, the opinion that the
>statements coming out of the NCUC, unlike other groups, are routinely
>dismissed as a refrain of a single, inflexible, and particularized
>approach to ICANN and the Internet, which approach doesn't well
>accommodate the dynamic dialogue envisioned by the multi-stakeholder
>principle.
>
>(3)  NCUC should take seriously the trust of representing the
interests
>of noncommercial users of the Internet and make some effort to
determine
>who falls in this category of users and what these users want in
terms
>of long-term, global Internet policy.  NCUC should then study,
consider
>and discuss these interests and make representative, respectful and
fair
>suggestions to the GSNO for the betterment of the Internet.  This
seems
>to be the charge given by ICANN.
>
>(4) In any event and notwithstanding all three of the above, the
>leadership of any group entrusted to represent a large and diverse
>constituency and make, on their behalf, recommendations should be
>routinely renewed and refreshed by new perspectives and approaches.
I
>fully understand that involvement in ICANN is very expensive and
almost
>prohibitive for those whose employers or clients do not have the
>economic stake or the resources to support the individuals doing the
>work.  I agree that NCUC needs to make a case to the ICANN board why,
by
>definition, the "non-commercial" users cannot afford to participate
in
>the same way that the commercial constituencies can.  Thus, the
>noncommercial interest group exists of record, but it cannot function
>effectively without support.  The result of the current system is
that
>NCUC speaks only for the few such organization that, for what ever
>reason, have established relationships with businesses and
individuals
>with loads of disposable cash, with sufficient economic incentive to
>justify supporting that particular organization, with governments,
and
>with the few universities who generously fund advocacy work.  While I
>understand that funds are now given by ICANN to support NCUC work, I
>fully understand that the ICANN support is insufficient and those
>involved must be financially able to absorb the travel and time costs.

>
>
>I admit readily that I do not have the hands-on experience or
long-term
>background that Robert has.  I don't suppose I am the best qualified
or
>most able person in the North American region to do this work.  I
would
>joyously vote for anyone else who wanted to do this and who could (1)
>begin a practice of reaching out to other viewpoints; and (2) create
a
>pattern where new people can be given the opportunities and thus the
>experience necessary for leadership - with the duty to invite, in
turn,
>new people and perspectives to work through the system.
>
>My basic biographical information is available at:
>http://www.law.byu.edu/Law_School/Faculty_Profile?102
>
>Please ask if you have questions.  Thank you for taking the time to
>consider these recommendations and my candidacy.
>
>
>Cheryl B. Preston
>Edwin M. Thomas
>Professor of Law
>J. Reuben Clark Law School
>Brigham Young University
>424 JRCB
>Provo, UT 84602
>(801) 422-2312
>prestonc at lawgate.byu.edu
>
>
>