Elections

[Robin Gross]

Cheryl,

I'm puzzled how you can ask us to vote for you to be our leader and
refuse to state your policy objectives on issues the constituency works
on.

NCUC is made up of various organizations with a diversity of viewpoints
that find a common constituency position for issues in the GNSO.  The
policy positions that the constituency takes in the GNSO process are
directly derived from the positions of the constituency's various
individual organizations.  So we have every right to ask in which
direction you would lead us?  And I'm concerned that you don't trust us
enough to tell us your views.

One must understand how policy is made at ICANN (with constituencies
*taking* positions that are negotiated with other constituencies to
reach a consensus).  So to say NCUC should be "neutral" on policy issues
is like saying we should abdicate our responsibility in the GNSO to
protect the interests on non-commercial users and the public interest.
Certainly we cannot simply leave it up to the businesses to work out
policies that will protect consumer rights and fundamental freedoms as
you suggest.

The most significant policy issue that NCUC has been engaged in for the
last 7 years, reform of ICANN's whois database policy (so it will comply
with privacy laws), is up for an important vote at the LA meeting.  The
process has been at a stalemate for years and could very well continue
that way for years more.  This policy issue is a key concern for our
constituency and we need to find an endgame that protects the privacy
rights of Internet users.  Since you think the only requirement for
leadership in NCUC is being "new", how will your "new" perspective lead
us to a whois endgame that protects privacy?

Thanks,
Robin



Cheryl Preston wrote:

>I would love to talk about my ideas.  This is exactly the kind of
>conversations we should be having.  However, I do not want strawman
>arguments to obscure the election issues.
>
>The election issue is not the ideas I have been spinning around about
>what roles ICANN might play at some stage.  I don't think my views, in
>any event, ought to become the objectives of NCUC.   As an ordinary
>member of NCUC, or as a representative to the excon, either way, I would
>hope to persuade others that NCUC ought not push for a total free
>expression mandate until some of the issues about the Information
>Society and appropriate ways to view the Internet are more fully
>explored.  There have been several comments on this list that I think
>misunderstand my views and I would like to correct.  But that is not the
>point.
>
>It is not my particular view that matters.  The only election issue I
>have raised are the 3 listed in my email regarding broader
>representation and neutrality.  No one should be elected or not elected
>on their personal views if we can envision the NCUC as a coalition, a
>place for discussion, a trust to at least consider the broad range of
>views of noncommercial issues.
>
>I will give you complete drafts, summaries, outlines, sources, cites,
>etc. if you are interested, after the election.  As I said talking about
>these possibilities maybe within the proper scope of the group's
>process.  I may be persuaded to change my mind.  I have certainly been
>entirely reasonable on all other issues.  In any event, my issues are
>not the NCUC issues.
>
>Keep the NCUC Nuetral.
>
>
>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 3:58 pm >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>Thanks.  I'm sure those of us in LA will be glad to see the papers.
>For
>the rest of us, perhaps you could summarize on this list your proposals
>
>for ICANN to regulate online content?
>
>Thank you,
>Robin
>
>
>Cheryl Preston wrote:
>
>
>
>>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 stun
>>>
>>>
>ned 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 supportin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>g
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>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 v
>>>
>>>
>iewpoint 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 est
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>ablished 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>