Top Myths About the Civil Society NCSG Charter

[Robin Gross]

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090810/57a044fb/attachment.html>