Top 10 Myths About Civil Society Participation at ICANN

Fri Aug 21 17:57:06 CEST 2009

dear All,

the Top 10 Myths is added in my blog (http://akimambo.unblog.fr

Baudouin

2009/8/21 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>

> 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]<#1233abc6b747538e__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] <#1233abc6b747538e__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
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
téléphone fixe: +243 1510 34 91
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243999334571
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
http://educticafrique.ning.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090821/2deeb9f7/attachment.html>