ICANN Must Account for its Math

Tue Aug 18 11:43:56 CEST 2009

At 4:08 AM +0900 8/15/09, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>Hi Adam,
>
>I am not expert in policy and maybe my analogy 
>is wrong but the Alan Greenberg arguments 
>reminds me the discourse that I heard and was 
>hearing for while in my country and usually in 
>my region to delay democracy application.

I don't believe that's Alan's intention.  He has 
been supportive of individuals getting more 
involved in GNSO policy development, that's 
actually what he wants the outcome of the GNSO 
reform. I think he believes that only a few 
really interested people will ever spend the time 
and energy to get involved and we should take 
great care to make sure such people don't face 
barriers.

His concern about capture (which I don't share), 
is I think that he believes an orchestrated 
campaign by a relatively small group could quite 
quickly take over the new NCSG.  Sorry, can't 
find his comments now to refer to.  Think is is 
worth the NCUC looking at his comments (expect 
those involved in drafting etc have better 
records of comments than I do) respond.  Other 
ALAC members shared his concerns.

>the idea is to maintain the statu quo to prevent 
>individuals or citizens to run affairs and to 
>only defend the interest of minority which in 
>case of ICANN may be groups of (really narrow) 
>interests. so those countries select groups 
>which "well represent" the society which in fact 
>mean a group of people belonging to oligarchy 
>and then to exclude the majority of citizens. it 
>is amazing to see that individuals are always 
>suspects when group of declared interest 
>shouldn't be.
>
>I started following ALAC activities since more 
>than two years and my feeling  ( sorry to say 
>that) that is good example of inefficiency and 
>best way to avoid civil society to express 
>through a policy of travel expenses etc (divide 
>and conquer?). many RALO (like AFRALO or 
>LACRALO) don't allow individuals to join but in 
>case of AFRALO they accept a federation of 
>associations etc which one of their stated goals 
>is to have a dotmed (for dot Mediterranean), I 
>am not sure but is it  possible for ALS to have 
>that?

I did not vote for that ALS application to be 
accepted, all I can say is I agree with you. I 
think all RALOs should allow individuals, as EU 
RALO does, but each RALO's charter was developed 
by its founding members and is maintained by the 
RALO.  If they are to be changed it has to be at 
the individual RALO level.

Thanks,

Adam

>I am not attacking ALAC but just to raise some concerns.
>
>Regards
>
>Rafik
>
>
>
>2009/8/14 Adam Peake <<mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>
>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>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:<mailto:mwong at piercelaw.edu>mwong at piercelaw.edu><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><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><http://ssrn.com/author=437584>http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>
>
>
>  Robin Gross 
><<mailto:robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>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>http://www.bizconst.org/members.htm>44 
>members.
>According to the IPR Constituency's website, 
>they 
>have <<http://www.ipconstituency.org/membership.htm>http://www.ipconstituency.org/membership.htm>18 
>members.
>According to the ISP 
>Constituency's <<http://www.ispcp.info/>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/>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>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><http://www.ipjustice.org>http://www.ipjustice.org 
> e: <mailto:<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>robin at ipjustice.org><mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>robin at ipjustice.org