Final Document: Top 10 Myths About Civil Society Participation at ICANN
Robin Gross
robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG
Fri Aug 21 20:50:42 CEST 2009
Attached and below is the final draft of the "Top 10 Myths"
document. I've reordered the list since yesterday per Seth's
suggestion and a couple minor tweaks.
Please feel free to blog it, repost it, TRANSLATE it to other
languages, etc.
It would also be useful to draft a timeline document of the NCSG
charter drafting process. Any volunteers?
Cedric is also working on a media release about the NCUC letter and
the top 10 myths doc. Thanks!
Best,
Robin
Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN
From The Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)
21 August 2009
Myth 1
“Civil Society won’t participate in ICANN under NCUC’s charter
proposal.”
False. ICANN staffers and others claim that civil society is
discouraged from engaging at ICANN because NCUC’s charter proposal
does not guarantee GNSO Council seats to constituencies. The facts
could not be further from the truth. NCUC’s membership includes 143
noncommercial organizations and individuals. Since 2008 NCUC’s
membership has increased by more 215% – largely in direct response
to civil society’s support for the NCUC charter. Not a single
noncommercial organization commented in the public comment forum that
hard-wiring council seats to constituencies will induce their
participation in ICANN. None of the noncommercial organizations that
commented on the NCSG Charter said they would participate to ICANN
only if NCSG's Charter secured the constituencies a guaranteed seat
on the GNSO.
Myth 2
“More civil society groups will get involved if the Board
intervenes.”
A complete illusion. Board imposition of its own charter and its
refusal to listen to civil society groups will be interpreted as
rejection of the many groups that commented and as discrimination
against civil society participation. ICANN’s reputation among
noncommercial groups will be irreparably damaged unless this action
is reversed or a compromise is found. Even if we were to accept
these actions and try to work with them, the total impact of the
staff/SIC NCSG charter will be to handicap noncommercial groups and
make them less likely to participate. The appointment of
representatives by the Board disenfranchises noncommercial groups and
individuals. The constituency-based SIC structure requires too much
organizational overhead for most noncommercial organizations to
sustain; it also pits groups against each other in political
competition for votes and members. Most noncommercial organizations
will not enter the ICANN GNSO under those conditions.
Myth 3
The outpouring of civil society opposition can be dismissed as the
product of a 'letter writing campaign.'
An outrageous claim. Overwhelming civil society opposition to the
SIC charter emerged not once, but twice. In addition, there is the
massive growth in NCUC membership stimulated by the broader
community’s opposition to the staff and Board actions. Attempts to
minimize the degree to which civil society has been undermined by
these developments are simply not going to work, and reveal a
shocking degree of insularity and arrogance. ICANN is required to
have public comment periods because it is supposed to listen to and
be responsive to public opinion. Public opinion results from
networks of communication and public dialogue on controversial
issues, including organized calls to action. No policy or bylaw
gives ICANN staff the authority to decide that it can discount or
ignore nearly all of the groups who have taken an interest in the
GNSO reforms, simply because they have taken a position critical of
the staff’s. ICANN's attempt to discount critical comments by
labeling them a "letter writing campaign" undermines future
participation and confidence in ICANN public processes.
Myth 4
"Civil society is divided on the NCSG charter issue."
Wrong. There has never been such an overwhelmingly lopsided public
comment period in ICANN’s history. While ICANN’s staff is telling
the Board that civil society is divided, the clear, documented
consensus among civil society groups has been against the ICANN
drafted NCSG charter and in favor of the NCUC one. Board members who
rely only on staff-provided information may believe civil society is
divided, but Board members who have actually read the public comments
can see the solidarity of civil society against what ICANN is trying
to impose on them.
Myth 5
"Existing civil society groups are not representative or diverse
enough."
Untrue by any reasonable standard. The current civil society
grouping, the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC), now has 143
members including 73 noncommercial organizations and 70 individuals
in 48 countries. This is an increase of more than 215% since the
parity principle was established.[1] Noncommercial participation in
ICANN is now more diverse than any other constituency, so it is
completely unfair to level this charge at NCUC without applying it to
others. Even back in 2006, an independent report by the London
School of Economics showed that NCUC was the most diverse
geographically, had the largest number of different people serving on
the GNSO Council over time, and the highest turn-over in council
representatives of any of the 6 constituencies. In contrast, the
commercial users’ constituency has recycled the same 5 people on the
Council for a decade and upon the GNSO “reform”, the first 3 of 6
GNSO Councilors from the Commercial Stakeholder Group will represent
the United States.
Myth 6
"ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society
drafted charter."
False. One ALAC leader said that she prefers the staff drafted
charter. ICANN staff ran away with this comment and falsely told the
ICANN Board of Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted
charter. In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC
said that many members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that
“the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good
move in the right direction.”
Myth 7
"The NCUC charter would give the same small group 6 votes instead of 3."
False. For the past 8 months, NCUC has stated that it will dissolve
when the NCSG is formed. It does not make sense to have a
"Noncommercial Users Constituency" and a "Noncommercial Stakeholders
Group,” as they are synonymous terms. Thus, NCUC leaders would not
be in control of a new NCSG – a completely new leadership would be
elected. Under the NCUC charter proposal, all noncommercial groups
and individuals would vote on Council seats, not just former NCUC
members. Strict geographic diversity requirements would mean that
candidates from throughout the world would have to be selected even
if they could not get a majority of total votes.
Myth 8
"NCUC will not share council seats with other noncommercial
constituencies."
Wrong. NCUC’s proposed charter was designed to allow dozens of new
noncommercial constituencies to form at will and to advance their own
candidates for Council seats. Given the diversity and breadth of
NCUC's membership, many different constituencies with competing
agendas are likely to form. The organic, bottom-up self-forming
approach to constituency formation is much better than the board/
staff approach – and more consistent with the BGC recommendations.
The SIC charter makes constituency formation very top-heavy and
difficult, and gives the staff and Board arbitrary power to decide
how “representative” or “significant” new participants are.
Because it ties constituencies to Council seats, every new
constituency instigates power struggles over the allocation of
Council seats.
Myth 9
"The NCUC wants to take away the Board's right to approve
constituencies."
False. People who said this have obviously not read the NCUC-
proposed charter. NCUC’s proposal let the board approve or
disapprove of new constituencies formed under its proposed charter.
Our proposal simply offered to apply some simple, objective criteria
(e.g., number of applicants) to new constituency groupings and then
make a recommendation to the Board. The idea was to reduce the
burden of forming a new constituency for both the applicants and the
Board. NCUC’s proposal made it easy to form new constituencies,
unlike the SIC charter, which makes it difficult to form new
constituencies.
Myth 10
“The purpose of a constituency is to have your very own GNSO Council
Seat.”
False. Some claim GNSO Council seats must be hard-wired to specific
constituencies because a constituency is meaningless without a
guaranteed GNSO Council representative. However this interpretation
fails to understand the role of constituencies in the new GNSO, which
is to give a voice and a means of participation in the policy
development process -- not a guaranteed councilor who has little
incentive to reach beyond her constituency and find consensus with
other constituencies. Two of the other three stakeholder groups
(Registries and Registrars) adopted NCUC’s charter approach of
decoupling GNSO Council seats to constituencies, but NCUC has been
prevented from electing its councilors on a SG-wide basis.
Join NCUC
All noncommercial organizations and individuals are invited to join
NCUC and participate in policy development in ICANN’s GNSO. Bring
your experience and your perspective to Internet policy discussions
and help protect noncommercial users of the Internet by participating
at ICANN via the NCUC. Join today: http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/main/
authorization/signUp?
Glossary of ICANN Acronyms
ALAC - At-Large Advisory Committee
ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for
considering and providing advice on the activities of the ICANN, as
they relate to the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-
Large" community).
gTLD - Generic Top Level Domain
Most TLDs with three or more characters are referred to as "generic"
TLDs, or "gTLDs". They can be subdivided into two types, "sponsored"
TLDs (sTLDs) and "unsponsored TLDs (uTLDs), as described in more
detail below.
In the 1980s, seven gTLDs (.com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net,
and .org) were created. Domain names may be registered in three of
these (.com, .net, and .org) without restriction; the other four have
limited purposes. Over the next twelve years, various discussions
occurred concerning additional gTLDs, leading to the selection in
November 2000 of seven new TLDs for introduction. These were
introduced in 2001 and 2002. Four of the new TLDs
(.biz, .info, .name, and .pro) are unsponsored. The other three new
TLDs (.aero, .coop, and .museum) are sponsored.
GNSO - Generic Names Supporting Organization
The GNSO is responsible for developing policy recommendations to the
ICANN Board that relate to generic top-level domains (gTLDs).
The GNSO is the body of 6 constituencies, as follows: the Commercial
and Business constituency, the gTLD Registry constituency, the ISP
constituency, the non-commercial constituency, the registrar's
constituency, and the IP constituency.
However, the GNSO is in the process of restructuring away from a
framework of 6 constituencies to 4 stakeholder groups: Commercial,
Noncommercial, Registrar, Registry. The Noncommercial and Commercial
Stakeholder Groups together make up the “Non-contracting Parties
House” in the new bi-cameral GNSO; and the Registrar and Registry
Stakeholder Groups will together comprise the “Contracting Parties
House” in the new GNSO structure (beginning Oct. 2009).
ICANN - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an
internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has
responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation,
protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code
(ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server
system management functions
NCUC - Noncommercial Users Constituency
The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for
noncommercial organizations and individuals in the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Generic Names
Supporting Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN
policy making and Board selection, it develops and supports positions
that protect noncommercial communication and activity on the
Internet. NCUC works to promote the public interest in ICANN policy
and is the only noncommercial constituency in ICANN’s GSNO (there
are 5 commercial constituencies). The NCUC is open to noncommercial
organizations and individuals involved in education, community
networking, public policy advocacy, development, promotion of the
arts, digital rights, children's welfare, religion, consumer
protection, scientific research, human rights and many other areas.
NCUC maintains a website at http://ncdnhc.org.
NCSG - Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
The GNSO is in the process of being restructured from “6
constituencies” to “4 stakeholder groups”, including a
Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) into which all noncommercial
organizations and individuals will belong for policy development
purposes, including members of the Noncommercial Users Constituency
(NCUC). The NCSG and the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) will
together comprise the “Non-contracting Parties House” in the new
bicameral GNSO structure beginning October 2009.
Links to Background Information:
NCUC Letter to ICANN Board and CEO on NCSG Charter Controversy:
http://bit.ly/BiOg8
Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC):
http://ncdnhc.org
NCUC submitted NCSG charter proposal:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-petition-charter.pdf
Robin Gross on “Is ICANN Accountable to the Public Interest?”:
http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCUC-ICANN-Injustices.html
ICANN GNSO Chair Avri Doria on “Why I Joined the NCUC”:
http://tiny.cc/EPDtx
Internet Governance Project: “4 ICANN Board members dissent in vote
on NCSG charter”:
http://tiny.cc/S5CjP
2006 London School of Economics Independent Report on GNSO:
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15sep06.htm
[1] We encourage those GNSO constituencies who claim is NCUC is
insufficiently large enough to deserve representational parity with
commercial users on the GNSO Council to publish their own
constituency’s current membership roster, as NCUC does at: http://
ncdnhc.org/page/membership-roster.

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/20090821/6b071100/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN-FINAL.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 168021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090821/6b071100/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090821/6b071100/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list