Charters RESPONSE

Tue Dec 2 05:25:24 CET 2008

Only one point here Cheryl  you are saying:
³The Alternative Charter is not too late.  I have again talked
with ICANN staff...² - I am not sure how plausible this is. We have already
sent a charter and you speaking to ICANN staff about an alternative one is 
for me at least  quite worrying. NCUC is trying as hard as we can to
influence ICANN/GNSO decisions and you enquiring the possibility of
submitting a new charter does  not make us seem as a team that has in place
democratic processes, which is not the case. I just wanted to express my
concern over this as it is completely misleading to the way we are working.

Konstantinos

On 01/12/2008 18:33, "Cheryl Preston" <PRESTONC at LAWGATE.BYU.EDU> wrote:

> This topic has raised interesting discussion on the very kind of issues
> that non-commercial Internet users should be talking about.  We have
> heard from all of the active NCUC folks, except for Robin and Carlos and
> they will probably weigh in later today.  Rather than respond to each of
> the statements made by Bill, Milton, Konstantin, Norbert and Mary (as
> much as I may like to), I am going to focus on 3 VERY BIG issues.
> 
> 1.      The Alternative Charter is not too late.  I have again talked
> with ICANN staff and there is no ³deadline² that was missed.  The
> only time frame was Milton¹s offer to the Board representatives in
> Cairo to turn in a draft before the end of November, and both versions
> met this.  The staff is just beginning to address their procedures in
> reviewing charter proposals.  ICANN as an organization is not going to
> cut off valuable discussion and consideration of alternatives without
> having a clear, publicly posted deadline.
> 
> 2.      Mary is correct in describing the ³cohesive, unified²
> approach that has been the hallmark of NCUC representation.  Rather than
> being a political strength, however, the single issue solidarity has
> been seen by many in ICANN as a weakness, as a barrier to consensus
> building.  The NCUC representatives are solidified around free
> expression and the kind of ³net neutrality² that overrides competing
> concerns for protections and standards on the Internet.  If you would
> like a list of NCUC statements and positions over the last few years,
> let me know.
> 
> They are effective in voting as a block.  The business users group, for
> example, is made up of 3-4 constituencies who do not always have
> ³similar interests,² but sometimes widely inconsistent and
> competing interests that have to be negotiated.  (Do you want
> testimonials?)  A broad-based, consensus building model is meant to
> foster compromises and balancing at every level.
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly with Norbert when he talks about the evils of
> governmental repression of political speech.  Building an Internet that
> can resist such pressure is a fundamental value of mine as well.
> However, we are capable of the more sophisticated approach, as is true
> in the law of every free nation.  We need not oppose every kind of
> regulation or law enforcement on the Web to reach our goals on political
> repression.  Mary notes that ³NCUC 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.²  The
> fact that it is the only forum/voice is exactly why it needs to include
> and represent those who have other valuable concerns to balance with
> ³open access.²
> 
> 3.      You all have expertise to make the critical decisions about
> charters.  ICANN is aware that their efforts to build a bottom-up
> support organization have been impaired by the way newcomers are treated
> (Note: be sure to respond to the constituency survey before the
> mid-December deadline).  We must avoid the kind of dialogue that conveys
> this message: ³There is this bigger, scary political dynamic and rules
> and deadlines you can¹t understand, and you, as a newcomer, don¹t
> have nearly enough history, background, insider connections, and
> expertise.²
> 
> The issue here is simple, and all of you are more than qualified to
> address it:  Should the representatives for all non-commercial Internet
> users in ICANN¹s policy processes unify in solidarity for free
> expression in a simple structure that squeezes out other user interests
> and alternative approaches?
> 
> I see no reason to continue any discussion other than on the merits of
> the two proposals.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheryl B. Preston
> Edwin M. Thomas
> Professor of Law
> J. Reuben Clark Law School
> Brigham Young University
> 434 JRCB
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801) 422-2312
> prestonc at lawgate.byu.edu
> 
>>>> >>> Mary Wong <mwong at PIERCELAW.EDU> 11/30/2008 11:54 pm >>>
> 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 ³non-commercials² 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 ³add that simplicity is also
> 
> valuable,... ... without adding significant complexity to the
> proposal²
> - 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: ³The 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
> ³not
> open²
> 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 ³openness² which we would have hoped for. But I
> cannot
> easily
> accept to say that ICANN is ³not willing to provide a voice to new
> users
> of
> the Internet and Web.²
> 
> In 1999, and for some years to follow, there was an effort going on to
> create
> an ³individual membership constituency² - 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 ³not
> willing to
> provide a voice to new users of the Internet and Web.²
> 
> 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&pag
> ewanted=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)

-- 
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Lecturer in Law,
GigaNet Membership Chair,
University of Strathclyde,
The Lord Hope Building,
141 St. James Road,
Glasgow, G4 0LT,
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20081202/0b19bebd/attachment.html>