Help Build The New GNSO ???

[Adam Peake]

(another resend of another "lost" message...)

Cheryl, Hi.

I am mainly an observer on this list now, but I 
think the problem was mainly that you submitted 
your alternative proposal the day after a long 
known deadline for submitting the constituency's 
proposals. I felt there was more frustration that 
you were late, than with the actual content of 
what you were proposing.

We should hear from the people you encouraged to 
join, how did they react once they had read 
replies from NCUC members.

But you're right, the NCUC does tend to represent 
a pretty narrow range of interests, but it's 
always been open, and once when it had access to 
some funds had a much more diverse membership. 
It's the nature of volunteer organizations that 
those who step up to do the work get to sway the 
outcomes. And as lot of the stuff ICANN does, and 
particularly the GNSO, is arcane, it's always 
going to be a minority who will be will to step 
up and do the work.

It's very hard to get people interested and to 
stay interested, particularly when to be really 
engaged and contribute is also quite costly. It 
takes a pretty strong motivation to continue in 
this environment (there's not a great career path 
here!)  So while I can understand your 
frustration, please don't blame people for 
volunteering their time.

I found the NCUC's NCSG proposal to be open, I 
don't see barriers to joining.  I see some good 
balance between member's powers and 
constituencies, a lot of thought in how to 
encourage policy participation and also a broad 
membership. It is not perfect.

Now the process is up in the air again (I think 
many of us thought it was moving towards 
conclusion some months ago) perhaps you could 
produce an amended version of the NCUC proposal 
so we could clearly see the changes you are 
proposing and why. My apologies if you have 
already done this and I've missed it!

(seems there might be a problem with the list, perhaps this won't get through!)

Thanks,

Adam


At 12:47 PM -0700 1/13/09, Cheryl Preston wrote:
>Dear Avri,
>
>I agree with your note to the Council that 
>perhaps the "commercial" members of the GNSO 
>might not be best suited to help in developing 
>the new NCSG.  However, some kind of coalition 
>or discussion group beyond the existing NCUC is 
>absolutely necessary. 
>
>The fault may be entirely mine, but discussion 
>within NCUC of building a NCSG that 
>realistically shares power with groups holding 
>differing viewpoints has consistently failed. 
>They may not agree with my ideas on how to 
>approach the problem (which is entirely fair), 
>but they have not offered alternatives to the 
>specific problems I highlight in the 
>explanations of the Alternative Charter.  They 
>obviously realize that a vast number of 
>non-commercial users who do not align with the 
>positions taken by the NCUC with respect to free 
>speech and anonymity.  For whatever reason, the 
>NCUC structure has been ineffective in 
>presenting meaningful input from these competing 
>interests.  But the proposed charter replicates 
>the NCUC on a larger scale.  Thus, a broader 
>range of participants is necessary to look at 
>these issues from an objective perspective. 
>
>I found 6 - 7 other academics willing to be 
>involved in representing some of these other 
>veiw points and joining a new constituency. 
>They made an attempt to ask Milton on the NCUC 
>list for a comparison between the two proposed 
>charters.  (See list archive 
>http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0811&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&F=&S=&P=10179), 
>http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0811&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&F=&S=&P=10268, 
>http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0811&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&F=&S=&P=10357.) 
>They were told it was too late, they don't have 
>enough experience, they don't understand the 
>politics and power issues of ICANN, etc.  (See, 
>e.g., list archive 
>http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0811&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&F=&S=&P=10437, 
>and response from Mary (copied below) that I 
>can't find on the list archive.)  Clearly, 
>unless something changes, the only hope for 
>making progress in composing a realistic GNSG is 
>to involve others who will not be intimidated by 
>claims that they don't have enough ICANN history 
>to understand.
>
>I think the ALAC is indisputably an appropriate 
>partner in conceiving of a new NCSG.  In 
>addition, we need input from others with history 
>in the GNSO who can respond to claims about how 
>it works.  They way to increase participation is 
>to ask for a breadth of representation in 
>developing a new structure.
>
>If there is ANYONE on the NCUC list (or 
>otherwise) who would be interested in discussing 
>how the NCSG can include alternative viewpoints 
>or address the specifics of the current NCUC 
>proposed charter, please come forward.
>
>Cheryl B. Preston
>Edwin M. Thomas
>Professor of Law
>J. Reuben Clark Law School
>Brigham Young University
>434 JRCB
>Provo, UT 84602
>(801) 422-2312
>prestonc at lawgate.byu.edu
>
>>>>  Mary Wong <mwong at PIERCELAW.EDU> 11/30/2008 11:54 pm >>>
>Hello everyone
>
>I'd like to add my own note of welcome to all new members, whose voice
>and expertise I personally am looking forward to benefiting from. As
>Norbert has done, I'd like also to introduce myself briefly and to do
>what I can to clarify what's been happening at/within ICANN and NCUC.
>
>Along with Bill Drake (who, with others who have long been involved in
>Internet governance issues, is currently flying the flag for
>bottom-up,
>multistakeholder involvement at the IGF in Hyderabad) I was recently
>elected as a new NCUC representative to the GNSO Council (joining
>Carlos
>Affonso de Pereira from Brazil). As many of you know, I pledged to
>respect and further open discussion of what at times are disparate
>voices, disagreements and differing priorities/issues amongst us,
>while
>trying my best to craft a representative and - if possible - unified
>viewpoint to other constituencies and groups within ICANN. Unlike the
>other GNSO constituencies, NCUC is unique in that our members will not
>always have similar views on many issues; this, unfortunately, can
>also
>be our "weakness" (and I will explain what I mean by this below).
>
>Although I have less personal experience/involvement in ICANN than
>many
>of you (especially Milton, Norbert, Robin, Carlos and others) my
>recent
>observations and experiences (from Paris and Cairo, and now - wading
>daily through over a dozen (often more) lengthy emails and numerous
>conference calls/requests regarding GNSO work) are as follows, first
>on
>GNSO/ICANN and then on the ongoing NCUC/NCSG process.
>
>1. GNSO/ICANN
>
>- I can't overly emphasize how vital it is for all NCUC members to
>realize that we are often a group "under siege" by better-funded, more
>unified (for having more clearly aligned - usually commercial -
>interests) constituencies/groups, including - and sometimes especially
>-
>within the GNSO.
>
>- The main reason for this lies mostly with the fact that, as our name
>implies, we are there to represent the non-commercial users (whether
>institutions or individuals); as such, NCUC is often the only
>forum/voice for individuals and non-business interests to discuss
>fundamental public policy issues such as fair and open Internet
>access/neutrality. 
>
>- NCUC's Councillors generally endeavor to speak and vote according to
>what we perceive - largely through feedback mechanisms such as this
>listserv - to be the prevailing view (and if possible, consensus)
>amongst NCUC members. While we three each cast individual votes, we
>try
>as far as possible to discuss and coordinate our actions and views. We
>also know there will be times where there is no NCUC view or
>consensus;
>at such times, we try our best to discern an objective and fair
>viewpoint to take. Should any NCUC member believe that any of our
>votes
>or speeches misrepresent the constituency view or are otherwise
>unsupported/insupportable, we hope you will not hesitate to raise the
>matter publicly (e.g. on this listserv.)
>
>- ICANN is a hugely complex, and dare I say intimidatingly
>bureaucratized, organization: not only are there multiple issues
>(ranging from technical standards to public policy) being worked on at
>once, but deadlines are usually tight, and coordination often
>difficult
>to achieve. This often also means that the better-funded and
>professionally-staffed constituencies can muster views and positions
>much more quickly and consistently than NCUC (since most if not all of
>us do ICANN work on top of our regular jobs.) As I said before, my
>view
>therefore is that it's crucial for NCUC (or whatever group ultimately
>represents non-commercial users at ICANN) to present a coherent and,
>if
>possible, unified public viewpoint, as this makes our position
>stronger
>and our views more likely to make an impact.
>
>2. On the NCUC/NCSG question
>
>- Milton and (I believe) Konstantinos has already outlined the
>background and timelines involved in this, so let me just add my
>personal belief that this is one issue where NCUC members CANNOT
>afford
>to appear fragmented and disunited. With the backgrorestructuring (and
>recalling the recent, fraught and difficult battle
>over the number of votes per existing constituency in the new
>bicameral
>house structure), the political reality is that it is entirely
>possible
>that a diffused and weakened Non-Commercial user group will mean less
>influence and respect in the restructured GNSO.
>
>- Let me add also that it is currently UNCLEAR what the relationship
>between the proposed new Stakeholder Groups and constituencies will
>be.
>None of the official ICANN studies or documents discuss (much less
>resolve) this question, making it all the more important that there be
>a
>unified, strong Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that will continue to
>represent - and fight - for non-commercial voices and interests.
>
>- I support Milton's proposal for a number of reasons, including the
>very strong impression I got in Cairo that it would greatly benefit
>NCUC/NCSG to submit a formal proposal to the Board as early as it
>could
>possibly do so. The draft proposal was what was discussed and (as a
>result) modified, and it was the modified document that was submitted
>within the designated time period.
>
>- Finally, and returning briefly to the "platform" upon which I asked
>for all of your support in the Council, it is absolutely critical that
>the Non-Commercial user group does NOT allow itself to be divided into
>multiple and different groups that do not have a formal vote in the
>new
>GNSO structure. Milton's proposal has the benefit of allowing not just
>the formation of new constituencies WITHIN a strong Non-Commercial
>Stakeholder Group (NCSG), it also gives those new constituencies a
>voice
>and vote within the NCSG AND avoids the fragmentation and consequent
>weakening of our "external positioning" that I have already mentioned.
>
>With apologies for the length of this post,
>
>Mary