ICANN SOI to fill sham noncommercial council seats

[Mary Wong]

Hi everyone
 
Just 3 quick observations for now (and yes, I know this is a public list) -
 
1. Whatever happened to the SIC's willingness to discuss potential appointees with those of us non-commercial individuals/users/organizations that expressed willingness to discuss/negotiate the SIC-Staff draft Charter in Sydney? Weren't there then, and up to 24 July, more than 3 willing, qualified persons - including new entrants to ICANN, technical folks, researchers, consumer representatives and individuals from multiple countries - whose willingness to serve was known to the SIC before the Board meeting?
 
2. It doesn't seem to matter how much, quickly or diverse the NCUC membership is, grows or becomes. Despite being presented with actual statistics of membership growth and diversity, the current NCUC is still not diverse or representative enough. By whose measure? And using what criteria?
 
3. The current NCUC has clearly and publicly expressed welcome and support for a consumer constituency. Indeed, we reached out to Beau Brendler in Mexico and in Sydney, amongst other people and groups. We have always said, and Beau has also noted, that a consumer constituency fits very well within the NCSG framework - but it is not up to NCUC to approve such a constituency. Aside from reaching out to consumer representatives (which we have done) and encouraging them to form a constituency and join NCUC/NCSG, what more are we supposed to do?
 
4. Ironically, the ICANN call for Statements of Interest for non-commercials in relation to the three new NCSG seats is something ICANN could and should have easily done for/with the existing NCUC, since the Board has always known (and expressed sympathy for) the lack of resources that unpaid volunteers face as a major obstacle toward outreach. Perhaps the only inescapable conclusion from all this is that only those non-commercial persons/entities that meet with the Board's and/or the Staff's approval can constitute worthy participants in the ICANN environment? 
 
5. I am touched by and glad for Avri's statement, and welcome her - and others like her - whose principles and hard work are beyond reproach. It saddens me tremendously that, with the JPA issue and a new CEO, ICANN elects at this moment to close down dialogue with those non-commercial participants that have worked so very hard to be more inclusive and open to negotiation with everyone in the ICANN community. We need to mobilize now, to highlight the prejudices and inequities that are entrenched within the ICANN process. 
 
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


>>> Adam Peake <ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP> 8/6/2009 3:37 AM >>>
Why not compromise.  Attempt to restart a process 
where the SIC and NCUC charters are considered 
side by side.

The NCUC has three council seats.

The NCUC does not have membership (or significant 
membership) from international consumer 
organizations (noted in many recent comments from 
the board and others as a missing constituent in 
all of ICANN), nor for the largest academic 
communities, libraries, R&D, etc.  So why not 
accept the interim and offer to work with the 
board to help identify possible candidates from 
such groups, and to try and bring those groups 
into the NCUC or to encourage them to form a 
constituency (as consumer groups seem to be 
trying to do, can NCUC help them?)

And then look to negotiate differences between 
the charters.  Can we accept that councillors 
could be selected through a hybrid constituency 
based model, where a general membership selects a 
slate which is then voted on by constituencies in 
an Executive Committee? (just an idea...) And at 
the same time emphasize that policy must be 
developed in a bottom-up fashion at the 
stakeholder-wide level.  Can we come up with 
specific rule based criteria for the creation of 
new constituencies (no one will apply to the 
vague process in the SIC charter, it is no better 
than what we've had since the GNSO was created.)

I think we were set back from discussing workable 
compromises when the SIC draft was put forward 
and the NCUC draft effectively taken off from 
discussion.  Ours and the community's responses 
were made to the SIC draft, but we did not 
discuss and modify in response to comments the 
NCUC draft. Where there was criticism of the NCUC 
draft was on the static position of some months 
ago.

I have heard some people assert that the NCUC has 
never shown any willingness to compromise from 
its criticism of anything that it hadn't written, 
yet claiming that the NCUC documents were still 
open to negotiation -- so a public attempt to 
engage in negotiation would at least put this to 
the test.

Think there are two options: some form of appeal 
to the Board's decisions, i.e. reconsideration, 
obmudsman (who has the power to open all kinds of 
email trails, discover what documents were 
presented, what was said), or independent review. 
Or more sensible, offer to negotiate, offer some 
compromise.

Adam (not on behalf of GLOCOM NCUC member, or 
ALAC of which I a member.  Purely personal 
observation.)





>Here is ICANN's announcement calling for 
>Statements of Interest from those interested in 
>volunteering to be appointed by the board to 
>represent noncommercial users:
> 
><http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05aug09-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05aug09-en.htm
>
>"... Of the four new Stakeholder Group Charters 
>approved by the Board last week, this temporary 
>seat selection by the Board is unique to the 
>NCSG. It reflects a fundamental view that the 
>current non-commercial community participation 
>in the GNSO is not yet sufficiently diverse or 
>robust to select all six of the NCSG's allocated 
>Council seats (as was originally intended by the 
>Board's GNSO Improvements initiative)...." 
>
>ICANN claims we are not "sufficiently diverse or 
>robust enough to select all six" GNSO Council 
>seats.  Yet NCUC represents 137 noncommercial 
>organizations and individuals from 48 countries. 
> Our membership has increased by 205% since the 
>parity principle was established.  There never 
>was any bar for us to meet - that rhetoric was 
>invented by the commercial constituencies and 
>selectively adopted by ICANN staff to justify 
>why 137 noncommercial organizations and 
>individuals are not entitled to elect their own 
>representation.
>
>Too bad noncommercial users will not be given 
>electoral parity with commercial users as the 
>BGC originally promised.  Another empty promise, 
>another rigged process.  ICANN is more 
>aggressive than ever in squeezing out 
>noncommercial users in policy development.  So 
>sad.
>
>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>http://www.ipjustice.org 
> e: <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>robin at ipjustice.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090806/e54c0b1a/attachment.html>