ICANN Must Account for its Math

Fri Aug 14 21:08:44 CEST 2009

Hi Adam,
I am not expert in policy and maybe my analogy is wrong but the Alan
Greenberg arguments reminds me the discourse that I heard and was hearing
for while in my country and usually in my region to delay democracy
application. the idea is to maintain the statu quo to prevent individuals or
citizens to run affairs and to only defend the interest of minority which in
case of ICANN may be groups of (really narrow) interests. so those countries
select groups which "well represent" the society which in fact mean a group
of people belonging to oligarchy and then to exclude the majority of
citizens. it is amazing to see that individuals are always suspects when
group of declared interest shouldn't be.

I started following ALAC activities since more than two years and my feeling
 ( sorry to say that) that is good example of inefficiency and best way to
avoid civil society to express through a policy of travel expenses etc
(divide and conquer?). many RALO (like AFRALO or LACRALO) don't allow
individuals to join but in case of AFRALO they accept a federation of
associations etc which one of their stated goals is to have a dotmed (for
dot Mediterranean), I am not sure but is it  possible for ALS to have that?
I am not attacking ALAC but just to raise some concerns.

Regards

Rafik

2009/8/14 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>

> At 2:32 PM -0400 8/12/09, Mary Wong wrote:
>
>> Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
>> Content-Description: HTML
>>
>> Robin and everyone,
>>
>> My guess is that these constituencies (certainly the IPC and to some
>> extent the BC) will respond by saying, yes but *each* of our members (or
>> some, in the case of the BC) is an association/group that represents many
>> individuals, firms, corporations and organizations. Thus, while
>> our technical member number seem low, the reality is that we have literally
>> thousands of participants in our constituencies and ICANN.
>>
>> While we can and should note that participation via indirect
>> representation is less truly participatory than direct membership (as is the
>> NCUC model), particularly for individuals. Note that only organizational
>> members have the right to vote in the IPC, for instance. I think, however,
>> that we need to recognize that this type of math - however shaky - can at
>> first glance to a hassled and overworked Board member seem accurate and
>> true.
>>
>>
>
>
> There's nothing wrong with indirect representation so long as the
> organization's members have some idea of what's being done in their name.
> Looking at a few of these representative org's websites it seems very few
> make any attempt to inform members of what's happening in ICANN or attempt
> to consult member's views and bring them to ICANN's policy processes. Not
> the bottom-up model ICANN is so proud of.
>
> Some large companies do take notice (couple of large telcos come to mind,
> and the International Chamber of Commerce) but by and large, no indication
> the members are being meaningfully represented.
>
>
>
>  I think the best way we can make our case for diversity and representation
>> is to combine our statistics with the above; i.e. point to our growth, the
>> fact and advantage of direct membership/participation, the lack of barriers
>> in NCUC to individuals voting and so on.
>>
>
>
> Yes, and emphasize that this is an engaged community. The recent comment to
> the public forum not a letter writing campaign, but evidence of
> organizations and individuals getting directly involved.
>
> In the letter you mention ALAC's concern about capture.  It was raised in
> the ALAC's last agreed statement <
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html>, while
> not everyone shared Alan Greenberg's views 100%, there was a pretty common
> concern.  Please don't just dismiss this as just one member's concern, and
> answer would be helpful.
>
> "* Although the inclusion of individuals is satisfying on a number of
> levels, the proposed voting structure makes the NCSG very vulnerable to
> take-over, particularly with the lack of a fee structure being specified,
> and the lack of rules or proposed process which could even verify that all
> individual members are in fact identifiable people acting on their own
> accord. This could, over a period straddling two annual meeting, allow
> takeover of all council seats, reinforcing the first bullet above." (the
> first bullet mentioned talks about lack of incentive for new members to
> join. Explaining how the NCUC proposal will be attractive to new
> members/constituencies would also be helpful.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>> BTW, thanks to all who commented on the draft Board letter. I'm making
>> amendments now and will send out a new version as soon as I can.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Mary
>>
>> Mary W S Wong
>> Professor of Law
>> Franklin Pierce Law Center
>> Two White Street
>> Concord, NH 03301
>> USA
>> Email: <mailto:mwong at piercelaw.edu>mwong at piercelaw.edu
>> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>> Webpage: <http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php>
>> http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
>> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
>> at: <http://ssrn.com/author=437584>http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>
>>
>>   Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> 8/12/2009 12:13 PM >>>
>>>>>
>>>> The Facts.
>>
>> Commercial Stakeholder Group Membership.
>> According to the Business Constituency's website, they have <
>> http://www.bizconst.org/members.htm>44 members.
>> According to the IPR Constituency's website, they have <
>> http://www.ipconstituency.org/membership.htm>18 members.
>> According to the ISP Constituency's <http://www.ispcp.info/>website,
>> (they don't publish membership lists and haven't had a post to their <
>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/>email list in 2009).
>>  But, according the 2006 LSE Report (the last documented account of the ISP
>> Constituency's membership, they have 42 members.
>>
>> So if we add the membership of these 3 commercial constituencies together,
>> we get  total of 104 members in the Commercial Stakeholder Group, who will
>> elect 6 GNSO Councilors.
>>
>> Contrast:
>> NCUC has <http://ncdnhc.org/page/membership-roster>142 members but
>> noncommercial users will not be allowed to elect any of our new GNSO
>> Councilors on the claim that we are too small to deserve to elect all 6 GNSO
>> Councilors.
>>
>> Did anyone from ICANN staff/SIC do any math before they ruled
>> non-commercial users are too small to deserve to elect all 6 GNSO
>> Councilors?
>>
>>   NCSG membership = 142 members (allowed 3 elected representatives)
>>   CSG membership = 104 members (allowed 6 representatives)
>>
>> What was the decision-making process that led to ICANN's determination
>> that noncommercial users are too small?  Seriously, we deserve to know how
>> they arrived at that decision and upon what facts the decision was based -
>> it is our elected representation that they are meddling with.  ICANN will
>> have to answer this.
>>
>>
>> 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/20090815/a9338286/attachment.html>