Top 10 Myths About Civil Society Participation at ICANN

[Seth Johnson]

If it's not too late, try this ordering.  The *only* thing I have
changed is the order of the 10 points:

 
Myth 1
“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 2
“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 3
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 4
"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 5
"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 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
"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 8
"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 9
"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 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.