NCUC & NCSG diversity & participation

[Robin Gross]

What is also troubling is that our existing membership already  
includes many members from these categories.   We have at least dozen  
consumer organizations - many members of the Trans Atlantic Consumer  
Dialogue and several new African consumer groups, so they are here.   
Many just don't have the budgets internally to make ICANN a priority  
- it is expensive to fly around the world every few months and pay  
for $20 club sandwiches at the Hilton.

What ICANN is looking for are "consumer groups" who are in fact  
funded by business - and not true noncommercial organizations, but  
this will take away a noncommercial council seat.  Another chip away  
from noncommercial users rights.

The comment about libraries - we have libraries too.  We are proud  
that Egypt's Library of Alexandria is a new member of NCUC - one of  
the members that ICANN doesn't think deserves a vote for lack of  
"representation" and "diversity".   The irony of this barely 10-yr  
old Internet organization telling the ancient Library of Alexandria  
it doesn't deserve a vote on Internet policy is beyond arrogance.  It  
is dangerous.    ICANN staff would drive the Internet into the ground  
if that is what it took to control it.

Robin


On Aug 6, 2009, at 3:16 AM, Adam Peake wrote:

> At 11:17 AM +0200 8/6/09, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> I'm fine with restating openness to dialogue etc as you suggest.   
>> Not that we haven't before.
>>
>> Would like to pick up on one specific bit:
>>
>> On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> This may well be "noted" by the board and others but it is  
>> patently untrue http://ncuc.syr.edu/members.htm.   Just more  
>> disinformation.
>> (BTW I also noted some on the transcript of the ALAC call, e.g.  
>> Nick saying that the NCUC proposal does not allow board approval  
>> of constituencies...facts don't matter if one can't be bothered to  
>> learn them).
>>
>> Which is not to say that it wouldn't be great to have more groups  
>> with "consumer" in their title etc.
>
>
> Bill, I know the NCUC membership has been growing, both  
> organizations and individuals.  But I got the impression ICANN was  
> hoping (expecting) participation from groups representing new non- 
> commercial players, and also larger national and international  
> representative organizations. I think the commercial side of the  
> user house was expecting this too, at least that's how I read some  
> of the emails.
>
> Example in the library space, ALA has been a member for many years,  
> but there are hundreds of similar organizations around the world,  
> and then there's IFLA <http://www.ifla.org/>
>
> There's been a lot of talk about consumer organizations: most  
> countries have a national consumer organization, or many industry/ 
> sector related groups, and there are regional and international  
> bodies (Consumers International, Jeremy Malcolm now works for).   
> These organizations are being encouraged to form a constituency in  
> their own right, but that shouldn't stop them transitioning from  
> the NCUC, or NCUC trying to help that constituency to form.
>
> Each year the board selects a member of the NomCom to represent  
> "Academia & Research" (you'd think an NCUC related group).  They  
> just selected a guy called Jan Gruntorád, CEO of CESNET, the  
> Academic research network for the Czech Republic. Past selections  
> have been people with similar backgrounds, large academic R&D  
> networks (NRENs). Board obviously feels that it's a non-commercial  
> community not represented in the NCUC (except for KAIST.)
>
> Very difficult to sell ICANN to these types of organization, I  
> don't see the board being able to do a good job of this without  
> help, and the NCUC could do well by offering to help.  It'll take  
> outreach and money.
>
> About Nick's comment.  Perhaps an example of people forgetting what  
> was actually in the NCUC proposal because we've not been asked to  
> discuss it, just concentrating on the SIC.
>
> Adam
>
>> Perhaps this needs to be a larger, more focused discussion  
>> sometime, but while I think of it it's worth mentioning that there  
>> is also a claim in said circles that our members are not all  
>> sufficiently active and hence our diversity is just on paper,  
>> which in turn is supposed to allow for "capture" by a small  
>> cabal.  This of course is held against us as well, and will be  
>> relevant in the NCSG.  As you know, the staff's "Suggested  
>> Additional Stakeholder Group Charter Elements to Ensure  
>> Transparency, Openness, Fairness and Representativeness  
>> Principles" hold, inter alia, that "It is important that the Board  
>> and the community have the ability to determine what parties  
>> comprise a particular GNSO structure and who participates in an  
>> active way....[hence] Each GNSO structure should collect,  
>> maintain, and publish active and inactive member names identified  
>> by membership category (if applicable)"
>>
>> I raised concerns about the reasoning and operational implications  
>> of this on the last GNSO call, but they were pretty much brushed  
>> aside.
>> So I guess in some unknown manner members will have to show  
>> sufficient signs of life on a frequent enough basis for staff to  
>> deem them active and consider their views to "count" when  
>> constituencies state positions.  Oh, and meeting attendance lists  
>> must be published and will be considered too.  At least, all this  
>> undoubtedly will apply to nomcomm constituencies, business ones  
>> may get the usual pass from the standards to which we're held.
>>
>> And now I have to reply to the council list about this claim in  
>> the SOI that we are "not yet sufficiently diverse or robust to  
>> select all six"...sigh.  Pushing back on relentless disinfo does  
>> get tiring...
>>
>> Bill




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/20090806/5952d45c/attachment.html>