Top Myths About the Civil Society NCSG Charter
Cedric Laurant
cedric at LAURANT.ORG
Wed Aug 12 17:17:45 CEST 2009
Hi Robin, Milton and all,
As the document will be part of a public campaign
or, at least, be available publicly on the
Internet for everyone to see, I would explain all
the acronyms (GNSO, BGC, ALAC, SIC,...) and refer
to them in an appendix, including the ones that
seem obvious - but are not - for people who might
not even know what ICANN stands for. I guess
they are many people who, even though they are
interested in knowing more about Internet
governance issues, will stop reading the document
after seeing so many acronyms, and its purpose
will be lost for some of the people who could
potentially register as new NCUC members.
If this document is not only for ICANN
staff/board and NCUC staff to see, I would change
the wording to make it understandable for the
average Joe. If opening up this procedural
fairness debate to public debate is what the NCUC
aims for, I would rewrite some of the paragraphs
to make it much less hard to decipher.
Example:
>Myth 9
>"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 142 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.
I would modify the last sentence by:
None of the noncommercial organizations that
commented on the NCUC Charter said they would
participate to ICANN only if NCUC's Charter
secured the constituencies they would represent a
seat on the GNSO Council.
Another example:
>Myth 10
>"The purpose of a constituency is to have your very own GNSO Councilor."
>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
I would briefly explain here how does that participation works in practice.
>-- 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
Which ones?
>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.
What is a "SG-wide basis"? I confess that after
reading 2 weeks of emails on the NCUC discussion
mailing list, I do not know what the acronym
refers to. A quick search online dispelled my
doubts, but the average reader of this document
will not do it, and you will get him lost.
I would also explain, at the end of the document,
who the NCUC represents; that it indeed
represents the average Joe, why he has to worry
about what is happening, and what he can do to
add his voice to the debate.
Cedric
---
>Thanks, Milton.
>
>I've added a couple more myths and suggested edits in the attached document.
>
>All, please send in more comments and
>suggestions for refining this document so we can
>publish it in the next few days.
>
>Thanks,
>Robin
>
>?
>
>
>On Aug 11, 2009, at 5:57 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>>I have added a myth (one that I know Bd members
>>are very concerned about) but we still need two
>>others for our "top ten" list. Send in
>>suggestions....
>>
>>See attached
>>From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
>>[NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
>>Milton L Mueller [mueller at SYR.EDU]
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 5:38 AM
>>To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Top Myths About the Civil Society NCSG Charter
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>><Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN.doc>
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>Thanks, Milton.
>
>I've added a couple more myths and suggested edits in the attached document.
>
>All, please send in more comments and
>suggestions for refining this document so we can
>publish it in the next few days.
>
>Thanks,
>Robin
>
>
>
>Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
> x-mac-type=5738424E;
> x-unix-mode=0644;
> x-mac-creator=4D535744;
> name=Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN.doc
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN.doc"
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Top Ten Myths
>About #2A48A2.doc (W8BN/MSWD) (002A48A2)
>
>
>On Aug 11, 2009, at 5:57 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>>I have added a myth (one that I know Bd members
>>are very concerned about) but we still need two
>>others for our "top ten" list. Send in
>>suggestions....
>>
>>See attached
>>
>>From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
>>[<mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU]
>>On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
>>[<mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>mueller at SYR.EDU]
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 5:38 AM
>>To: <mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Top Myths About the Civil Society NCSG Charter
>>
>>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
>>[<mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU]
>>On Behalf Of Robin Gross
>>[<mailto:robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG]
>>Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:44 PM
>>To: <mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>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>http://www.ipjustice.org
>> e: <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>robin at ipjustice.org
>>
>>
>>
>><Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN.doc>
>>
>
>
>
>
>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
--
Cedric Laurant, Esq.
Researcher, GECTI (Grupo de Estudios en Internet, Comercio Electrónico,
Telecomunicaciones & Informática), Universidad de
los Andes (http://gecti.uniandes.edu.co/)
Carrera 1 No. 18A-10 - Bogota, D.C. (COLOMBIA)
<cedric at laurant.org> - Skype: cedrichl
http://www.linkedin.com/in/cedriclaurant
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090812/6bbf1a47/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list