A neutral NCUC?

[Cheryl Preston]

Could I get a list of the current NCUC membership?

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
>>> Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> 10/26/07 2:50 PM >>>
Hello all,
As a candidate for re-election as chair, let me explain my views on the
issues you have been discussing. 

My view is that NCUC has and should continue to have clear, neutral
_eligibility_ criteria for membership that must be applied uniformly and
fairly to all applicants. So, based on our charter NCUC membership is
open to any noncommercial organization that is not excluded on conflict
of interest grounds (such as membership in another GNSO constituency).
It is open to religious groups and atheist groups, pro-free speech and
anti-free speech groups, etc. 

Once we have a membership, however, the participants in this
constituency must engage with each other politically to formulate
policies that it can advocate in the GNSO policy making process. When
those views conflict, the one that reflects the preponderance of opinion
should prevail. 

NCUC cannot and should not be "neutral" on the key policy issues of
Internet governance. If it is, there is no point in having it. NCUC must
find those issues that inspire and animate its members and take strong
positions on them, and work to persuade other constituencies to agree
with those positions, so that policies reflecting them can be
implemented.

It is possible, of course, that the civil society groups that join
simply will not be able to agree. This can be handled in several ways. 

A. Our three GNSO Council representatives would vote differently from
each other. This implies that the different positions have enough
membership behind them to elect a Council representative. Obviously
fragmentation of the NCUC voice and vote diminishes our effectiveness,
but if it accurately reflects the breakdown of opinion so be it.
Generally, the NCUC charter and procedures are set up to give elected
officials a great deal of latitude, but we keep them on a short leash by
requiring them to be elected annually and imposing term limits. 

B. Another way is simply to refrain from taking positions. This can be
bad, or not so bad, depending on the nature of the issue. There are in
fact many issues handled by ICANN that really don't affect our members
that much. If we refrain from taking a position on that, we are simply
wisely allocating our time, energy and attention. If we cannot take
positions on critical issues regarding the future of ICANN, however, and
on issues that have major implications for the values most civil society
organizations hold, we are engaged in self-paralysis. So that outcome is
to be avoided.

C. A third way is to negotiate a compromise that keeps the differing
parties reasonably satisfied. This is what usually happens. 

We have experience with all three of these options. 

However, NCUC has a historic role in ICANN as the only principled
advocate for human rights and certain noncommercial interests of
internet users that cannot be reliably voiced by business stakeholders
or supply companies. It is vital that we retain that role.


Milton Mueller, Professor
Syracuse University 
School of Information Studies
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
------------------------------
The Convergence Center:
http://www.digitalconvergence.org