Charters

[William Drake]

Hello all,

Let me echo the comments of Milton, Konstantinos, Norbert, Mary, with  
respect to welcoming new members, the general dynamics of GNSO and  
ICANN, and the NCUC approved charter that has been submitted.  On the  
last point, as the others have already reaffirmed that NCUC's draft  
charter (which most definitely is not just "Milton's proposal") was  
considered over a period of time and debated in an open and inclusive  
manner, there's not much point in me reconstructing the trajectory  
again here.  I would simply amplify two points: First, for an  
"alternative charter" to be considered, it would have had to be  
submitted  much earlier in the process, before the community reached  
closure on the other.  Proposing to tear up an agreed text after it  
has already been submitted just doesn't work, and frankly we would  
look pretty foolish in the eyes of the other groups involved in ICANN  
which, as Mary has noted, generally have noncommercial interests and  
their volunteer representatives pretty heavily outgunned.  This would  
really do damage to our shared interests at precisely the worst time,  
given the restructuring underway.  Second, and again as Mary has  
emphasized, we really do need to avoid fragmentation as much as  
possible.  Overly complex structures that magnify differences rather  
than build on commonalities will just weaken our voice within ICANN  
and strengthen the power asymmetries that undercut noncommercial  
interests.  It's really not necessary in order to respect and give  
full airing to minority views.  And as a practical matter, it would  
be difficult to populate and sustain such an architecture with  
volunteer labor; just keeping afloat with what we have is demanding  
enough.

As a relative newcomer who's still struggling to get fully up to  
speed on NCUC and GNSO, I fully appreciate that coming into a process  
that has been unfolding for some time can lead to unfavorable  
impressions, and I wish we and ICANN more generally had better  
mechanisms in place to facilitate new people's integration than  
simply recommending that they read backwards in list archives.  But  
we don't, so everyone must muddle through.  But at least the  
collaboration here is transparent and conducted in good faith, and  
people have followed agreed processes to agreed conclusions.  Milton  
did a good job facilitating that, and in consequence we've submitted  
a charter that's really pretty good.  But if people want to suggest  
reconsideration of various elements after we hear back from the board  
and staff, of course they should do so at that time.

Best,

Bill



On Dec 1, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Mary Wong wrote:

> Hello everyone
>
> I'd like to add my own note of welcome to all new members, whose voice
> and expertise I personally am looking forward to benefiting from. As
> Norbert has done, I'd like also to introduce myself briefly and to do
> what I can to clarify what's been happening at/within ICANN and NCUC.
>
> Along with Bill Drake (who, with others who have long been involved in
> Internet governance issues, is currently flying the flag for bottom- 
> up,
> multistakeholder involvement at the IGF in Hyderabad) I was recently
> elected as a new NCUC representative to the GNSO Council (joining  
> Carlos
> Affonso de Pereira from Brazil). As many of you know, I pledged to
> respect and further open discussion of what at times are disparate
> voices, disagreements and differing priorities/issues amongst us,  
> while
> trying my best to craft a representative and - if possible - unified
> viewpoint to other constituencies and groups within ICANN. Unlike the
> other GNSO constituencies, NCUC is unique in that our members will not
> always have similar views on many issues; this, unfortunately, can  
> also
> be our "weakness" (and I will explain what I mean by this below).
>
> Although I have less personal experience/involvement in ICANN than  
> many
> of you (especially Milton, Norbert, Robin, Carlos and others) my  
> recent
> observations and experiences (from Paris and Cairo, and now - wading
> daily through over a dozen (often more) lengthy emails and numerous
> conference calls/requests regarding GNSO work) are as follows,  
> first on
> GNSO/ICANN and then on the ongoing NCUC/NCSG process.
>
> 1. GNSO/ICANN
>
> - I can't overly emphasize how vital it is for all NCUC members to
> realize that we are often a group "under siege" by better-funded, more
> unified (for having more clearly aligned - usually commercial -
> interests) constituencies/groups, including - and sometimes  
> especially -
> within the GNSO.
>
> - The main reason for this lies mostly with the fact that, as our name
> implies, we are there to represent the non-commercial users (whether
> institutions or individuals); as such, NCUC is often the only
> forum/voice for individuals and non-business interests to discuss
> fundamental public policy issues such as fair and open Internet
> access/neutrality.
>
> - NCUC's Councillors generally endeavor to speak and vote according to
> what we perceive - largely through feedback mechanisms such as this
> listserv - to be the prevailing view (and if possible, consensus)
> amongst NCUC members. While we three each cast individual votes, we  
> try
> as far as possible to discuss and coordinate our actions and views. We
> also know there will be times where there is no NCUC view or  
> consensus;
> at such times, we try our best to discern an objective and fair
> viewpoint to take. Should any NCUC member believe that any of our  
> votes
> or speeches misrepresent the constituency view or are otherwise
> unsupported/insupportable, we hope you will not hesitate to raise the
> matter publicly (e.g. on this listserv.)
>
> - ICANN is a hugely complex, and dare I say intimidatingly
> bureaucratized, organization: not only are there multiple issues
> (ranging from technical standards to public policy) being worked on at
> once, but deadlines are usually tight, and coordination often  
> difficult
> to achieve. This often also means that the better-funded and
> professionally-staffed constituencies can muster views and positions
> much more quickly and consistently than NCUC (since most if not all of
> us do ICANN work on top of our regular jobs.) As I said before, my  
> view
> therefore is that it's crucial for NCUC (or whatever group ultimately
> represents non-commercial users at ICANN) to present a coherent  
> and, if
> possible, unified public viewpoint, as this makes our position  
> stronger
> and our views more likely to make an impact.
>
> 2. On the NCUC/NCSG question
>
> - Milton and (I believe) Konstantinos has already outlined the
> background and timelines involved in this, so let me just add my
> personal belief that this is one issue where NCUC members CANNOT  
> afford
> to appear fragmented and disunited. With the backgrorestructuring  
> (and recalling the recent, fraught and difficult battle
> over the number of votes per existing constituency in the new  
> bicameral
> house structure), the political reality is that it is entirely  
> possible
> that a diffused and weakened Non-Commercial user group will mean less
> influence and respect in the restructured GNSO.
>
> - Let me add also that it is currently UNCLEAR what the relationship
> between the proposed new Stakeholder Groups and constituencies will  
> be.
> None of the official ICANN studies or documents discuss (much less
> resolve) this question, making it all the more important that there  
> be a
> unified, strong Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that will continue to
> represent - and fight - for non-commercial voices and interests.
>
> - I support Milton's proposal for a number of reasons, including the
> very strong impression I got in Cairo that it would greatly benefit
> NCUC/NCSG to submit a formal proposal to the Board as early as it  
> could
> possibly do so. The draft proposal was what was discussed and (as a
> result) modified, and it was the modified document that was submitted
> within the designated time period.
>
> - Finally, and returning briefly to the "platform" upon which I asked
> for all of your support in the Council, it is absolutely critical that
> the Non-Commercial user group does NOT allow itself to be divided into
> multiple and different groups that do not have a formal vote in the  
> new
> GNSO structure. Milton's proposal has the benefit of allowing not just
> the formation of new constituencies WITHIN a strong Non-Commercial
> Stakeholder Group (NCSG), it also gives those new constituencies a  
> voice
> and vote within the NCSG AND avoids the fragmentation and consequent
> weakening of our "external positioning" that I have already mentioned.
>
> With apologies for the length of this post,
>
> Mary
>
>
>
>>>> Norbert Klein <nhklein at GMX.NET> 11/30/08 3:16 PM >>>
> Dear new individual members of the NCUC (the new NCSG does not yet
> exist) who
> wrote recently,
>
> "Ralph D. Clifford" <rclifford at snesl.edu>
> "Jon Garon" <jgaron01 at gw.hamline.edu>
> "Kim, Nancy" <nsk at cwsl.edu>
>
> May I first introduce myself: Norbert Klein, since 1990 in Cambodia,
> working
> since 1994 in non-commercial organizations – in 1994 I created the  
> first
>
> Internet system in the country, in 1996 the country address .kh,  
> and in
> 1999
> I joined the “non-commercials” in ICANN – at that time it had a
> different
> name. During the last three years I was sent by the NCUC as a  
> councillor
> into
> the GNSO. Since November 2008, I am a member of the ICANN Nomination
> Committee.
>
> Though my working day – though a Sunday – went beyond midnight, I want
> to
> write to you and our community, because I am concerned about what you
> write –
> my mail is still basically a letter of welcome. I may not respond  
> to all
> of
> your concern and questions in a way you may expect – but I do so on  
> the
> basis
> of many hours during many years of a struggle to get our voice  - the
> Non
> Commercial Users Constituency – heard, as it developed over the years,
> and in
> the context of ICANN. We found ourselves often in a difficult  
> position -
>
> others with business, intellectual property, and technical mandates  
> had
> often
> better institutional support structures.
>
> While I understand your hope, saying  to “add that simplicity is also
> valuable,... ... without adding significant complexity to the  
> proposal”
> - I
> can only plead to spend quite some more time working through the
> complexity
> of the ICANN website:
>
> http://www.icann.org
>
> Surely you have done it – but I admit, after so many years, that I am
> still
> struggling to be oriented – not only about the structures – but about
> the
> dynamics and time lines, which exist and to which we have to adapt
> ourselves,
> if we want to have our voice heard, according to the right  
> procedure, at
> the
> right place, and at the right time.
>
> One sentence makes me concerned: “The bottom line is that ICANN is not
> perceived to be an open organization, nor one that is willing to  
> proPerceived by whom? A complex network of cooperating  
> organizations and
> institutions with their different interests cannot be called to be  
> “not
> open”
> for having worked out, changed, further developed, and revised again,
> certain
> rules and procedures. The discussions and outside consultancies and
> preparations towards the present GNSO restructuring process have been
> going
> on for several years – and as it is a process where quite different
> institutional actors are involved, not all of our concerns have been
> received
> with the same “openness” which we would have hoped for. But I cannot
> easily
> accept to say that ICANN is “not willing to provide a voice to new  
> users
> of
> the Internet and Web.”
>
> In 1999, and for some years to follow, there was an effort going on to
> create
> an “individual membership constituency” - which did not lead anywhere,
> because it was basically an effort by ONE person trying to decide what
> has to
> happen, and there was no support for this kind of approach in  
> ICANN. We,
> in
> the NCUC, received since that time the clear mandate to be a  
> membership
> organization of organizations, though we were concerned that this
> excluded
> the possibility for quite a number of individual persons who would  
> have
> liked
> to bring their contribution into our fellowship.
>
> Now, when we finally have taken the initiative to remove the
> institutional
> constraints for individuals – and have received the agreement  
> within the
>
> ICANN-GNSO restructuring to accept also individual members into the  
> NCUC
> (on
> the way into the NCSG) - I see no reason to say that ICANN is “not
> willing to
> provide a voice to new users of the Internet and Web.”
>
> You are among the first coming into this door we have worked to open.
>
> I cannot comment much on the alternatives proposed by Prof. Cheryl
> Preston –
> presented at a point in time publicly known to have been too late  
> to be
> integrated and sent to the ICANN board – after a draft had been
> discussed in
> different stages in the constituency, and we finally had a text which
> had
> received wide consensus and was sent on.
>
> Let me close with some content concern, and not only with structures.
> But it
> is again a very complex, not a simple situation we face.
>
> Freedom, justice, and openness have been extremely important elements
> for my
> work in Cambodia – in a context where the technological, economic, and
> political situation is VERY different from the one in most of the
> north-Atlantic countries. It was for me personally always important to
> have –
> in the NCUC fellowship – a group of people from where I could get
> support and
> inspiration for our situation here – even when we were in ICANN
> encountering
> challenges which were not only encouraging for our efforts in Cambodia
> (I am
> editing, since more than 10 years, a review of the Cambodian language
> press
> in English). The media – not only the printed press – is in an  
> unending
> struggle to find ways to communicate freely without intervention. The
> discussions about freedom of expression – in ICANN, including in the
> domain
> name system - provide always a context for me here, as they have  
> for the
>
> society in the USA. I just read, before writing to you, the following
> article, a kind of homework for the  GNSO Councillors from the NCUC –
> and
> this work is being done, of course, on the basis of discussion in the
> constituency. Therefore I hope for some extensive comments back:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30google-t.html? 
> ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all
>
> Whatever the time is at your end when you get this – here it is now
> 02:50. But
> I wrote now because of a deep concern.
>
>
> Norbert
>
> -- 
> Norbert Klein
> Phnom Penh/Cambodia
> PGP key-id 0x0016D0A9
>
> If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us
> regularly -
> you can find something new every day:
>
> http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English)
> http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer)

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
   Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20081201/1022870d/attachment.html>