Top 10 Myths About Civil Society Participation at ICANN
Carlos Afonso
ca at RITS.ORG.BR
Fri Aug 21 15:34:24 CEST 2009
This is really well done and needs to be widely widely widely
circulated. Grande Robin!
--c.a.
Robin Gross wrote:
> 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] <#_ftn1>
> 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 <http://alac.icann.org/>* - 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 <http://gnso.icann.org/> - 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 <http://www.icann.org/index.html> - 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 <http://icann.org/> (ICANN) Generic Names Supporting Organization
> <http://gnso.icann.org/> (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] <#_ftnref1> 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 <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>
>
>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list