ICANN Must Account for its Math

[Adam Peake]

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