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

[Robin Gross]

This is wonderful, thank you, Rebecca!


On Jul 14, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Rebecca MacKinnon wrote:

> 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




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090715/c947dcea/attachment.html>