Top Myths About the Civil Society NCSG Charter

[Milton L Mueller]

Robin, this is really useful.
I would alter the order of some of them and change a few wordings to make them less defensive. Mind if I work on it a bit?

________________________________
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Robin Gross [robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:44 PM
To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Top Myths About the Civil Society NCSG Charter

I think it would be helpful if we came up with a document "top 10 myths about the civil society NCSG charter" where we can list out all the various arguments we continually have to deal with that just don't apply to the facts.  Here's a few just off the top of my head.  We can build on it.

"NCUC is not representative or diverse in its membership."
False.  NCUC represents 139 members including 74 noncommercial organizations and 65 individuals in 48 countries.  NCUC has increased its membership by 210% since the parity principle was established in the BGC Report in 2008.  The LSE Report of 2006 showed NCUC was among the most diverse of any constituency and about as diverse as the Internet population.  NCUC has grown considerably since this was documented.

"We can't let the NCUC-Cabal have more power."
False.  NCUC represents an extremely broad and diverse membership and has shared council representation among its membership.  The 2006 LSE Report documented that NCUC has the most number of different people serving on the GNSO Council over time and the highest turn-over of any of the 6 constituencies.  It is the commercial constituency representatives who have held on to a single GNSO Council seat for nearly a decade making the claim NCUC is a "cabal" of one or two people.  How's that for irony?

"NCUC will not share council seats with other noncommercial constituencies."
False.  NCUC will dissolve and spin out into various splinter noncommercial constituencies in the NCSG.  It does not make sense to have a "Noncommercial Users Constituency" and a "Noncommercial Stakeholders Group" as they are synonymous terms.  Given the diversity and breadth of NCUC's membership, many vastly different constituencies are likely to spin-out with competing agendas.  The organic self-forming approach to constituency formation is much better than the board/staff Soviet-style gerrymandering approach.

"The NCUC wants to take away the board's right to approve constituencies."
False.  NCUC is happy to let the board approve or disapprove of constituencies.  Our proposal simply offered to make a recommendation to the board based on objective criteria and for the board to make the decision.

"ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society drafted charter."
False.  An ALAC leader prefers the staff drafted charter and commented that she supports the staff drafted charter.  ICANN staff ran away with this comment and told the ICANN Board of Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted charter.  The ALAC leader also made some largely incoherent claims about previous ALAC comments supporting staff's charter (although no such charter draft existed for ALAC members to have previously commented on).

"Civil society is divided on the NCSG charter issue."
False.  Staff told the ICANN Board that civil society is divided, but the overwhelming public comment has been in strong opposition to the ICANN drafted NCSG charter.  Board members who rely on staff to tell them what to think probably believe civil society is divided.  Those board members who have actually read the public comments for themselves know a very different story of the solidarity of civil society against what ICANN is trying to impose on noncommercial users.

"Labeling public comments as 'letter writing campaigns' means you can ignore them."
False.  It is called "public comment period" because ICANN is supposed to listen to public comment.  Even if public comments were prompted by the receipt of information and a call for action, ICANN is still supposed to listen to them.  If anyone actually takes the time to read the comments submitted, they will see these are individually written and well thought out arguments from a broad range of noncommercial organizations individuals.  ICANN's attempt to discount critical comments by labeling them a "letter writing campaign" does little to inspire further participation or confidence in ICANN public processes.



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<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090811/c1a496f1/attachment.html>