Top 10 Myths About Civil Society Participation at ICANN

Fri Aug 21 04:10:38 CEST 2009

Attached (and below) is the latest draft of the "Top 10 Myths"  
article.   Thanks very much for the feedback to improve it so far.   
Please send any additional edits and suggestions asap, so we can  
publish this document in the next day or so.

Thank you,
Robin

Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN
 From The Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)
20 August 2009

Myth 1
"Existing civil society groups are not representative or diverse  
enough."
Untrue by any reasonable standard.  The current civil society  
grouping, the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC), now has 142  
members including 73 noncommercial organizations and 69 individuals  
in 48 countries.  This is an increase of 215% since the parity  
principle was established.[1]  Noncommercial participation in ICANN  
is now more diverse than any other constituency, so it is completely  
unfair to level this charge at NCUC without applying it to others.   
Even back in 2006, an independent report by the London School of  
Economics showed that NCUC was the most diverse geographically, had  
the largest number of different people serving on the GNSO Council  
over time, and the highest turn-over in council representatives of  
any of the 6 constituencies.  In contrast, the commercial users’  
constituency has recycled the same 5 people on the Council for a  
decade and upon the GNSO reform, the first 3 of 6 GNSO Councilors  
from Commercial Stakeholder Group will represent the United States.

Myth 2
"The NCUC charter would give the same small group 6 votes instead of 3."
False.  For the past 8 months, NCUC has stated that it will dissolve  
when the NCSG is formed.  It does not make sense to have a  
"Noncommercial Users Constituency" and a "Noncommercial Stakeholders  
Group,” as they are synonymous terms.  Thus, NCUC leaders would not  
be in control of a new NCSG – a completely new leadership would be  
elected.  Under the NCUC charter proposal, all noncommercial groups  
and individuals would vote on Council seats, not just former NCUC  
members.  Strict geographic diversity requirements would mean that  
candidates from throughout the world would have to be selected even  
if they could not get a majority of total votes.

Myth 3
“More civil society groups will get involved if the Board  
intervenes.”
A complete illusion.  Board imposition of its own charter and its  
refusal to listen to civil society groups will be interpreted as  
rejection of the many groups that commented and as discrimination  
against civil society participation.  ICANN’s reputation among  
noncommercial groups will be irreparably damaged unless this action  
is reversed or a compromise is found.  Even if we were to accept  
these actions and try to work with them, the total impact of the  
staff/SIC NCSG charter will be to handicap noncommercial groups and  
make them less likely to participate.  The appointment of  
representatives by the Board disenfranchises noncommercial groups and  
individuals.  The constituency-based SIC structure requires too much  
organizational overhead for most noncommercial organizations to  
sustain; it also pits groups against each other in political  
competition for votes and members.  Most noncommercial organizations  
will not enter the ICANN GNSO under those conditions.

Myth 4
"NCUC will not share council seats with other noncommercial  
constituencies."
Wrong.  NCUC’s proposed charter was designed to allow dozens of new  
noncommercial constituencies to form at will and to advance their own  
candidates for Council seats.  Given the diversity and breadth of  
NCUC's membership, many different constituencies with competing  
agendas are likely to form.  The organic, bottom-up self-forming  
approach to constituency formation is much better than the board/ 
staff approach – and more consistent with the BGC recommendations.   
The SIC charter makes constituency formation very top-heavy and  
difficult, and gives the staff and Board arbitrary power to decide  
how “representative” or “significant” new participants are.   
Because it ties constituencies to Council seats, every new  
constituency instigates power struggles over the allocation of  
Council seats.

Myth 5
"The NCUC wants to take away the Board's right to approve  
constituencies."
False.  People who said this have obviously not read the NCUC- 
proposed charter.  NCUC’s proposal let the board approve or  
disapprove of new constituencies formed under its proposed charter.   
Our proposal simply offered to apply some simple, objective criteria  
(e.g., number of applicants) to new constituency groupings and then  
make a recommendation to the Board.  The idea was to reduce the  
burden of forming a new constituency for both the applicants and the  
Board.

Myth 6
"ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society  
drafted charter."
False.  One ALAC leader said that she prefers the staff drafted  
charter.  ICANN staff ran away with this comment and falsely told the  
ICANN Board of Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted  
charter.  In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC  
said that many members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that  
“the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good  
move in the right direction.”

Myth 7
"Civil society is divided on the NCSG charter issue."
Wrong.  There has never been such an overwhelmingly lopsided public  
comment period in ICANN’s history.  While ICANN’s staff is telling  
the Board that civil society is divided, the clear, documented  
consensus among civil society groups has been against the ICANN  
drafted NCSG charter and in favor of the NCUC one.  Board members who  
rely only on staff-provided information may believe civil society is  
divided, but Board members who have actually read the public comments  
can see the solidarity of civil society against what ICANN is trying  
to impose on them.

Myth 8
The outpouring of civil society opposition can be dismissed as the  
product of a 'letter writing campaign.'
An outrageous claim.  Overwhelming civil society opposition to the  
SIC charter emerged not once, but twice.  In addition, there is the  
massive growth in NCUC membership stimulated by the broader  
community’s opposition to the staff and Board actions. Attempts to  
minimize the degree to which civil society has been undermined by  
these developments are simply not going to work, and reveal a  
shocking degree of insularity and arrogance.  ICANN is required to  
have public comment periods because it is supposed to listen to and  
be responsive to public opinion.  Public opinion results from  
networks of communication and public dialogue on controversial  
issues, including organized calls to action.  No policy or bylaw  
gives ICANN staff the authority to decide that it can discount or  
ignore nearly all of the groups who have taken an interest in the  
GNSO reforms, simply because they have taken a position critical of  
the staff’s.  ICANN's attempt to discount critical comments by  
labeling them a "letter writing campaign" undermines future  
participation and confidence in ICANN public processes.

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.  None of the noncommercial organizations that  
commented on the NCSG Charter said they would participate to ICANN  
only if NCSG's Charter secured the constituencies a guaranteed seat  
on the GNSO.

Myth 10
“The purpose of a constituency is to have your very own GNSO Council  
Seat.”
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 -- 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  
(Registries and Registrars) 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.

Join NCUC
All noncommercial organizations and individuals are invited to join  
NCUC and participate in policy development in ICANN’s GNSO.  Bring  
your experience and your perspective to Internet policy discussions  
and help protect noncommercial users of the Internet by participating  
at ICANN via the NCUC.  Join today: http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/main/ 
authorization/signUp?

Glossary of ICANN Acronyms

ALAC - At-Large Advisory Committee

ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for  
considering and providing advice on the activities of the ICANN, as  
they relate to the interests of individual Internet users (the "At- 
Large" community).

gTLD - Generic Top Level Domain

Most TLDs with three or more characters are referred to as "generic"  
TLDs, or "gTLDs". They can be subdivided into two types, "sponsored"  
TLDs (sTLDs) and "unsponsored TLDs (uTLDs), as described in more  
detail below.

In the 1980s, seven gTLDs (.com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net,  
and .org) were created. Domain names may be registered in three of  
these (.com, .net, and .org) without restriction; the other four have  
limited purposes.  Over the next twelve years, various discussions  
occurred concerning additional gTLDs, leading to the selection in  
November 2000 of seven new TLDs for introduction.  These were  
introduced in 2001 and 2002.  Four of the new TLDs  
(.biz, .info, .name, and .pro) are unsponsored. The other three new  
TLDs (.aero, .coop, and .museum) are sponsored.

GNSO - Generic Names Supporting Organization

The GNSO is responsible for developing policy recommendations to the  
ICANN Board that relate to generic top-level domains (gTLDs).

The GNSO is the body of 6 constituencies, as follows: the Commercial  
and Business constituency, the gTLD Registry constituency, the ISP  
constituency, the non-commercial constituency, the registrar's  
constituency, and the IP constituency.

However, the GNSO is in the process of restructuring away from a  
framework of 6 constituencies to 4 stakeholder groups: Commercial,  
Noncommercial, Registrar, Registry.  The Noncommercial and Commercial  
Stakeholder Groups together make up the “Non-contracting Parties  
House” in the new bi-cameral GNSO; and the Registrar and Registry  
Stakeholder Groups will together comprise the “Contracting Parties  
House” in the new GNSO structure (beginning Oct. 2009).

ICANN - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an  
internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has  
responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation,  
protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code  
(ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server  
system management functions

NCUC - Noncommercial Users Constituency

The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for  
noncommercial organizations and individuals in the Internet  
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Generic Names  
Supporting Organization (GNSO).  With real voting power in ICANN  
policy making and Board selection, it develops and supports positions  
that protect noncommercial communication and activity on the  
Internet.  NCUC works to promote the public interest in ICANN policy  
and is the only noncommercial constituency in ICANN’s GSNO (there  
are 5 commercial constituencies).  The NCUC is open to noncommercial  
organizations and individuals involved in education, community  
networking, public policy advocacy, development, promotion of the  
arts, digital rights, children's welfare, religion, consumer  
protection, scientific research, human rights and many other areas.   
NCUC maintains a website at http://ncdnhc.org.

NCSG - Noncommercial Stakeholders Group

The GNSO is in the process of being restructured from “6  
constituencies” to “4 stakeholder groups”, including a  
Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) into which all noncommercial  
organizations and individuals will belong for policy development  
purposes, including members of the Noncommercial Users Constituency  
(NCUC).  The NCSG and the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) will  
together comprise the “Non-contracting Parties House” in the new  
bicameral GNSO structure beginning October 2009.

Links to Background Information:

NCUC Letter to ICANN Board and CEO on NCSG Charter Controversy:
http://bit.ly/BiOg8

Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC):
http://ncdnhc.org

NCUC submitted NCSG charter proposal:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-petition-charter.pdf

Robin Gross on “Is ICANN Accountable to the Public Interest?”:
http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCUC-ICANN-Injustices.html

ICANN GNSO Chair Avri Doria on “Why I Joined the NCUC”:
http://tiny.cc/EPDtx

Internet Governance Project: “4 ICANN Board members dissent in vote  
on NCSG charter”:
http://tiny.cc/S5CjP

2006 London School of Economics Independent Report on GNSO:
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15sep06.htm

[1] We encourage those GNSO constituencies who claim is NCUC is  
insufficiently large enough to deserve representational parity with  
commercial users on the GNSO Council to publish their own  
constituency’s current membership roster, as NCUC does at: http:// 
ncdnhc.org/page/membership-roster.

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/20090820/adafeda5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN-v4.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 76288 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090820/adafeda5/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090820/adafeda5/attachment-0001.html>