IP Constituency Urges ICANN Board to Deny 6 Council Seats to NonCommercial Stakeholders Group

Thu Apr 16 01:15:30 CEST 2009

Hello everyone,

I agree - in the limited few hours left we may want to focus on the criticisms leveled by the IPC and continue to work on a response that critiques the IPC's own proposal.

It's almost midnight here in England and I'm jetlagged and exhausted - can someone volunteer to submit a response to the public comment forum along the lines of:

"The IPC appears to be attempting to re-open the Board's resolution of 28 August 2008, which endorsed the WG-GCR report and approved the division of seats in the new non-contracted party house (6 from the Commercial Stakeholder Group, and 6 from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group). The NCUC as currently comprised acknowledges and accepts the BGC's view that a new NCSG should go beyond the current membership of the NCUC (as detailed in the BGC report of 3 February 2008, approved by the Board on 26 June 2008.) It is the view of those who submitted the proposed new NCSG charter on 16 March 2009 that: 

(1) the new charter will go further than the existing NCUC processes and the charters submitted by the other existing ICANN Constituencies to ensure broader, more diverse and greater participation and membership by (a) minimizing barriers to membership/entry for both individuals and organizations; (b) ensuring that minority views are represented; and (c) allowing for the easy formation (subject to Board approval) of new constituencies; and

(2) the IPC's critique of the re-seating of the 3 existing NCUC Councillors fails to recognize that this is simply a one-off transition move. Given the tremendous workload and incredibly short ramping-up time new Councillors have to become familiar with ICANN processes, acronyms, bylaws and operations, it is simply not feasible to expect any constituency/SG to hold elections and seat new Councillors by the Sydney meeting. Further, the GNSO Improvements Process itself recognizes the need to ensure transitional continuity (e.g. by the possibility, now beind discussed within the GNSO Council, of having staggered terms for Councillors) and for proper training of Councillors. It is thus entirely possible that the new NCSG may, upon formation, hold elections for new Councillors; the current NCSG charter proposal merely suggests a that reseating incumbent Councillors is a transitory stage to such elections."

Robin or someone - can you review, edit and (if the substance of my comments here are acceptable to folks on this listserv) send to the Public Comments forum ASAP? I'm honestly too wiped out to know if I'm making any sense :(

Thanks, 
Mary 

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu 
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php 
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 

>>> Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> 4/15/2009 5:48 PM >>>
Hi Bill,

I agree that we should submit a response to this that discusses in detail the great wisdom of their SG proposal.  However, I'd prefer that we not try to throw something together in 2 hours, but rather take some time and come up with a solid document.  A response from the non-commercial users to the IPC's charge against us must be received by ICANN - even if it comes in 1 week after the public comment period.

Best,
Robin

On Apr 15, 2009, at 2:16 PM, William Drake wrote:

Robin,

Nice that they waited until the last minute to submit this, without ever seeking a discussion with us in any setting.

What's the precise cut off time for comments?  It's what, 2pm in California, so there is some time before COB.  If you have a little head space, why not write a short critique of the CSG Charter, such that it is?  It's after 11pm here and I can't type any more today, but I'd support whatever you come up with.  There's plenty to complain about starting with the first para, which claims the CSC represents "users;" the restrictive membership construction (e.g. how many individual entrepreneurs do they have, how representative, diverse, and "deserving" are they); and complete lack of clarity and development in their draft about essentially all institutional aspects (all those high-paid lawyers and this is the best they can do?), a point that should be hammered. Perhaps a new council shouldn't be seated until they clarify how they will select six reflecting the criteria we are alleged not to meet.

Just a thought.

Bill

On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:45 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

The IP Constituency submitted its comments today on the stakeholder group petitions.

See:
   http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/pdfyb62GoZM3w.pdf 

It calls on the ICANN Board to deny the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group its rightful 6 council seats, claiming we aren't "representative" enough.  The IPC complains because our counselors will remain seated after June (but doesn't mention that its own counselors will also remain seated).  In fact, it didn't make any comments on its own proposals - it is only a slam on all non-commercial users proposals.

Wow.  They really are desperate with this move.

Robin

IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake  
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
  Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch 
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj 
***********************************************************

IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090415/979f5bf3/attachment.html>