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

[Robin Gross]

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090714/b0aded32/attachment.html>