Is ICANN Accountable to the Global Public Interest? ICANN Ignores Non-Commercial Users in Internet Policy Development Process

[Rebecca MacKinnon]

For what it's worth I wrote a post on my blog about ICANN free speech issues
and the importance of including non-commercial voices, aimed at people who
know little or nothing about the IRT, NCUC, or how ICANN works.
http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/07/icann-and-free-speech.html

Best,
Rebecca

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

>  Bill,
> You are hired as my editor!   Thanks very much!!
>
> I'll get these points into the document.
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
>
> On Jul 14, 2009, at 12:12 AM, William Drake wrote:
>
> Hi Robin,
> This is very useful, thanks for doing it.
>
> Don't know whether you are open to considering amendments, but in the event
> you are there's a couple points you might consider amplifying/clarifying to
> strengthen the argument, particularly for outreach to folks who are not
> already following this closely.
>
> On Jul 14, 2009, at 2:04 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
>
> Board Appointed (top-down) vs. Elected (bottom-up) Represent ion on GNSO
> Council
>
> Specifically, beginning with the Seoul ICANN Meeting in October 2009,
> noncommercial users and commercial users are each supposed to have elected 6
> representatives to the GNSO Council.  However, as a result of back channel
> lobbying by the commercial constituencies who lost the advantage in numbers
> of councilors, the 3 new GNSO Council seats that should have gone up for
> election to noncommercial users, will instead become board appointments.
>
>
> Aside from a general sense that reps should be elected rather than
> appointed, some readers might not get what the problem is here.  Might it be
> useful to add a sentence addressing the possibility of non-representative
> reps dictated by staff/board, fragmentation of SG cohesion, etc?  Should it
> be noted that the appointments are supposed to be for just the first cycle?
>
>
> ICANN Defies Public Comment and Imposes Stranglehold Charter Model
>
> What did ICANN do in response to the public comment it received and the
> global consensus against the stranglehold charter model proposed by CP80?
>  ICANN adopted the stranglehold charter model for noncommercial users,
> defying the unanimous public support expressed for the charter drafted by
> noncommercial users that was created through a consensus process.
>
>
> Wouldn't it be good for this paragraph to describe precisely what the
> nature of the stranglehold is with the staff version?  You say above that
> CP80s' would put NC "in endless competition among factionalized
> constituencies, constantly fighting over scarce resources and representation
> on ICANN's GNSO Council," but readers who've not read CP80s and the staff's
> against each other might not get just what you're contending the current
> version would do.
>
>
> ICANN's Sneaky Move to Keep Plans Hidden
>
> On 23 June 2009, when ICANN finally released its proposed charter to
> noncommercial users, in addition to the charter being an entirely different
> different structure than the one created by the consensus process, ICANN's
> charter also omitted to include the most important section 5 which deals
> with management of the NCSG and in particular, representation on the GNSO
> Policy Council.
>
>
> I am a little confused by this, so others may be too.  Presumably the text
> staff has posted for comment is the "official" version being considered.
>  What exactly is the status of section 5, then?
>
>
> Only after explicitly requesting to see the omitted section, was NCUC
> provided section 5 from ICANN with the understanding that it is staff's
> proposal for governing the NCSG.  One will not find ICANN's proposed section
> 5 in its NCSG charter published on the ICANN website, but it can read be
> read here -- and it must be read together with the ICANN-drafted NCSG
> charter for it be clear what sneakiness is at play.
>
>
> The "it can read be read here" has a link on your blog, but in the ascii
> version sent to the listservs there's no link, so readers cannot see what
> you're talking about.  Moreover, even if they go to your blog and follow the
> link, the description of voting rules etc might leave them unclear as to
> just what the problem is.  Wouldn't it make sense to quote the source and
> describe the problem a little?  Otherwise, asking people to "tell ICANN" etc
> might not work as well.
>
> Just some thoughts, make of them what you will.
>
> Should I send it to the council list to tweak some beaks?
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>


--
Rebecca MacKinnon
Open Society Fellow | Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org
Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong
Kong

UK: +44-7759-863406
USA: +1-617-939-3493
HK: +852-6334-8843
Mainland China: +86-13710820364

E-mail: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com
Blog: http://RConversation.blogs.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rmack
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/rebeccamack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090714/82cf89e1/attachment.html>