NCUC & NCSG diversity & participation

[Alex Gakuru]

Challenges foreseen on 'Looking Towards the Future' by Vint Cerf
http://www.icann.org/en/documents/vint_cerf/lttf.htm

Alex

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Adam Peake<ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 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
>