"NCUC opposes constituencies"

[William Drake]

More

Begin forwarded message:

> From: William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> Date: October 18, 2009 11:18:41 AM GMT+02:00
> To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto at icann.org>
> Cc: "'At-Large Worldwide'" <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>,
> "'ALAC Working List'" <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders?
>
> Hi Roberto,
>
> Thanks for your reply, glad we're talking about this stuff, helpful.
>
> On Oct 18, 2009, at 1:01 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> We might have a communication problem.
>> What I meant, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that:
>>
>> - the NCUC was against the creation of constituencies as groups
>> that had
>> automatic voting seat(s) in the Council
>> - groups did not see any interest in doing the work of creating
>> constituencies if they were guaranteed no seats in the Council
>
> If that is what you meant, then yes indeed we have a communication
> problem.  You wrote,
>
> "But the main point for the SIC to maintain the concept of
> constituency, against the open opposition of NCUC," which sounded to
> me like you were saying the main point for the SIC is to maintain
> the concept of constituency, against the open opposition of NCUC.
> Sorry for my confusion.
>
> Bear in mind, I'e been hearing this kind of thing for months now,
> including from board members in MC, and there's list traffic this
> morning indicating that others here were not clear on the point.  So
> especially at a time when some ALAC folks are proposing
> constituencies, it's a cause for concern when someone in your
> position of authority appears to be saying NCUC opposes the whole
> concept.  That would be the RySG, not us.  (BTW, why did SIC ok RySG
> eliminating constituencies in their charter?  I never understood the
> rationale for not having harmonized structures across SGs, and it
> makes the misimpression about NCUC's charter which explicitly
> provides for constituencies seem all the more odd.)
>
> Entirely separate from the principal of constituencies are two issues:
>
> *Whether council seats should be hard wired.  On this we agree with
> the SIC, as you know.  I understand there are folks here who feel
> differently, and say nobody will want to do the work of launching a
> constituency if they don't automatically get a council seat.  I'm
> not convinced that's true---I know I and others I've talked to
> wouldn't feel that's necessarily a barrier, if per the NCUC proposed
> charter constituencies could run candidates in an open election and
> in all likelihood get one that way---but I understand the concern
> and that's a design issue we ought to be able to talk through and
> build confidence.
>
> *Whether constituencies should be formed soon under the SIC/staff
> transitional charter, rather than waiting a little while until a
> mutually satisfactory final arrangement can be arrived at.  We
> remain concerned that doing it under the SIC/staff version would
> lock that in and make a joint review and revision impossible.  The
> timing here is up to you folks on the board, not us.  We'd prefer to
> resolve things with you ASAP, and constituency launches could then
> proceed as soon as there are viable proposals.  Unfortunately, I
> think NCUC folks have contributed to confusion on this point by
> saying the review should happen within a year, which some have
> processed as meaning we want to wait a year before anything can be
> launched.  Within a year doesn't mean in a year, we can do this as
> soon as you're ready.
>
>
>> Is this a fair representation of the reality, yes or no? If no, I
>> apologize,
>> as I did really miss something important. If, on the other hand,
>> the answer
>> is yes, I stand behind my whole post.
>>
>> The question, as I understood it, was to find a balance that could
>> have
>> taken into account to the maximum extent possible these two
>> different and
>> apparently radically opposed positions. The fact that the solution
>> is being
>> shot from both sides confirms that it was not an easy problem, and
>> that
>> positions were really opposed. The point is now where we go from
>> here. Can
>> we discuss and see if this is a solution that can work or not?
>
> I sure hope so, and we are looking forward to meeting with the board
> and getting the process started.  But let's make sure we understand
> the positions and the differences between them accurately, that'll
> help facilitate things a productive dialogue.
>>
>> To make statements that imply that SIC has not read the NCUC
>> charters is not
>> helpful.
>
> Didn't mean to imply this, but rather that if you believe NCUC
> opposes constituencies as you appeared to be saying, you might look
> again at the NCUC charter which endorses constituencies and suggests
> mechanisms for their formation and collaboration.
>
>> We have two possibilities, one is to get together and to make it
>> work, the other one is to insist that the bad and ugly SIC has
>> imposed a
>> top-down solution against the will of the masses.
>
> I didn't characterize the SIC as bad and ugly.  It is unquestionably
> true though that the SIC imposed a solution that was opposed by
> NCUC's 80 organizational and 87 individual members and a wide array
> of non-member supporters and was supported by 3 people.  If you
> don't like calling this top down, ok, give me another term for
> something done by the board over the strenuous opposition of the
> community in question.  I'm not hung up on language, just facts.
>
>> I see these as alternative
>> positions, for the simple fact that accepting and propagating the
>> latter
>> means not to have understood (or to pretend not having understood)
>> the
>> amount of consultation, negotiation and compromise that went into the
>> solution, which is the exact opposite of having imposed a top-down
>> view.
>
> Unfortunately, the consultation, negotiation and compromise didn't
> really involve NCUC.  But we can still do that, and very much look
> forward to working with you in Seoul and beyond to arrive at a
> lasting solution that is supported by the actually existing NC
> community.
>
> All the best,
>
> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>>> Sent: Saturday, 17 October 2009 11:58
>>> To: Roberto Gaetano
>>> Cc: At-Large Worldwide; ALAC Working List
>>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders?
>>>
>>> Hi Roberto,
>>>
>>> May I just correct once again one whopping bit of bad info, please.
>>>
>>> On Oct 17, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>>
>>>> Beau,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, is it true what I heard that the three newly appointed
>>>>> GNSO people have now been hard-wired in to two-year terms? I don't
>>>>> really see a constituency model working under those circumstances.
>>>>> Who's going to join a constituency if they have to wait
>>> two years to
>>>>> be able to directly elect a representative? No consumer group I am
>>>>> aware of is going to want to do that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that we will need to clarify many things in Seoul, one of
>>>> which is the reason for certain decisions of the SIC.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, the SIC has decided, after long discussion,
>>> not to have
>>>> an automatic link between creation of a constituency and
>>> establishment
>>>> of a seat in the Council. The reasons against this position include
>>>> what you correctly point out, i.e. that it will be more
>>> difficult to
>>>> get people's interest if there's no immediate
>>> representation in terms
>>>> of voting rights.
>>>> However, there are also reasons for taking this approach.
>>> One of these
>>>> is that we have to avoid the "frivolous" creation of constituencies
>>>> for the simple purpose of getting a vote. A bit like create empty
>>>> shells as registrars to have a higher firing power for getting
>>>> valuable names.
>>>> Another
>>>> observation is that in the "old" council it was exactly the
>>> fact that
>>>> the creation of a new constituency would have altered the voting
>>>> balance that de facto prevented the creation of any new
>>> constituency
>>>> in 10 years.
>>>>
>>>> But the main point for the SIC to maintain the concept of
>>>> constituency, against the open opposition of NCUC, but to keep it
>>>> without an automatic
>>>
>>> NCUC is NOT and has NEVER been against the concept of
>>> constituencies, period.  I do not understand what the purpose
>>> would be in telling ALAC people something about NCUC that is
>>> patently untrue, but it really does not facilitate trust
>>> building and the collegial resolution of the issue. The
>>> charter NCUC submitted, and which you set aside without
>>> comment, has an page of clear language about the formation
>>> and operation of constituencies in Section 2.3.
>>> http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/ncsg-petition
>> -charter.pdf
>>>  I would encourage you to read it if you have not.  A few
>>> key bits of note include:
>>>
>>> -------------
>>>
>>> *Constituencies are self-defined groupings of NCSG members organized
>>> around some shared policy goals (e.g. consumer protection, privacy);
>>> shared identity (e.g., region or country of origin, gender, language
>>> group); type of organization (e.g., research networks, philanthropic
>>> foundations) - or any other grouping principle that might affect
>>> members' stance on domain names policy.
>>>
>>> *There is no requirement that NCSG members join a constituency.
>>>
>>> *When at least 3 organizational members or at least 10
>>> individual NCSG
>>> members volunteer to join the Constituency on the public list within
>>> two months of the publication of the notification of intent the
>>> prospective Constituency becomes eligible to schedule a
>>> meeting (which
>>> can be either in person or online).
>>>
>>> *The eligible constituency holds a public meeting(s) to draft a
>>> charter and appoint an official representative of the constituency.
>>> The meeting(s) can be online but must be open to observation by the
>>> general public.
>>>
>>> *The proposed constituency charter is submitted to the NCSG Policy
>>> Committee for ratification.
>>>
>>> *Once accepted by the PC the constituency application will be
>>> sent to
>>> the ICANN Board for approval. The Board shall also serve as the
>>> vehicle for appeals to NCSG decisions on the recognition of a
>>> constituency.
>>>
>>> *Constituencies have a right to: 1.	Place one voting
>>> representative on
>>> the Policy Committee; 2.	Delegate members to GNSO
>>> working groups and
>>> task forces; 3.	Issue statements on GNSO Policy
>>> Development Processes
>>> which are included in the
>>> official NCSG response, but marked as constituency positions,
>>> and not
>>> necessarily the position of NCSG as a whole.
>>>
>>> -------------
>>>
>>> I do not know how this possibly can be characterized as
>>> opposition to
>>> the concept of a constituency.
>>>
>>> The principal difference with the charter you've imposed on us, as
>>> we've explained time and again, is that we do not think it
>>> wise to set
>>> up constituencies as purely self-regarding silos that compete
>>> against
>>> each other for council seats, recognition and influence, and thereby
>>> spend their time fighting and jockeying for position rather than
>>> working together to advance noncommercial public interest
>>> perspectives
>>> in ICANN.  We think it is better for constituencies to
>>> collaborate in
>>> an integrated community.  Hence, we did not think it sensible
>>> to hard
>>> wire council seats (which would get absurd if the number of
>>> constituencies exceeds six, as it hopefully will...we're glad you
>>> agreed on this), and instead suggested that GNSO Council
>>> Representatives be elected directly by all NCSG members in an annual
>>> SG-wide vote.  To secure a council seat, a constituency on consumer
>>> protection, registrants, privacy, gender, freedom of speech or
>>> whatever else would simply have to be a vibrant group that puts
>>> forward a candidate and vision that others find persuasive.  Given
>>> that noncommercial people tend to share certain broad values and
>>> priorities, I'm hard pressed to imagine that, for example, a solid
>>> consumer constituency that actually comprises noncommercial
>>> actors and
>>> advocates for the public interest would have a hard time getting
>>> support from people who care about privacy, speech, and so on.  So
>>> it'd be a matter of persuading colleagues rather than having a
>>> birthright fiefdom within which one does one's own thing and ignores
>>> everyone else.
>>>
>>> We understand that questions have been raised about voting
>>> formula and
>>> whether it might make sense to put in place mechanisms to
>>> prevent the
>>> 'capture' of the council, and we've said we're open to viable
>>> suggestions on that score.  Have yet to hear one. One might add that
>>> if NCUC's proposed charter had been approved and constituency
>>> formation were made as easy as we'd hoped, the NCUC itself
>>> would have
>>> ceased to exist, and those of our current 80 organizational and 87
>>> individual members who wanted to off and form constituencies on
>>> privacy, gender, or whatever else would have done so.  So there'd be
>>> no NCUC to be capturing anything in the first place.  In contrast,
>>> under the SIC charter, NCUC would be nuts to disband, inter alia
>>> because it'd leave our members homeless, especially the
>>> individuals.
>>> Hard to see how that would be good for ICANN.
>>>
>>>> voting power, against the obvious concerns of who wants to build
>>>> new
>>>> constituencies, is the leit-motiv that has guided the whole
>>> process
>>>> of the
>>>> review: move the focus away from the vote, which is by its nature
>>>> divisive,
>>>> onto the consensus building process.
>>>> New constituencies will not have the right to appoint their "own"
>>>> councillors, but will have the right to participate in WGs
>>> and other
>>>> policy
>>>> making processes and bodies, will have support from ICANN staff and
>>>> resources to self-organize, will be able to participate
>>> with their own
>>>> representatives in the Executive Committee of the NCSG, etc.
>>>> In simple words, what we have tried to do is to create a balance
>>>> and
>>>> hopefully a possible way to coexist and, in time, to collaborate,
>>>> for all
>>>> the different components of the wide and diverse non-commercial
>>>> internet
>>>> community. Somebody on this list has spoken about
>>> "reconsideration"
>>>> of the
>>>> Board's decision. This is surely possible. But what I would
>>> propose
>>>> is to
>>>> try to discuss and understand if what the SIC has proposed
>>> can work in
>>>> practice, although it is not going to be perfect for anybody,
>>>> before
>>>> shooting it down and start all over again. This discussion
>>> is for me
>>>> one of
>>>> the main priorities, if not the first priority altogether,
>>> in Seoul,
>>>> which
>>>> as you all know will mark the end of my term as Director.
>>>>
>>>> The ALAC and the NCUC are two big parts of this picture, the only
>>>> organized
>>>> bodies in ICANN so far (for non-commercial users), I personally
>>>> think that
>>>> the first step can be to have a joint discussion in Seoul. Bill's
>>>> proposal
>>>> of meeting in an event that is not only work, but also
>>> social, goes
>>>> in this
>>>> sense, methinks.
>>>
>>> Here we agree.  And I think finding common ground will be a
>>> lot easier
>>> if ALAC colleagues are not laboring under the false impression that
>>> NCUC somehow wants to prevent them or other from forming
>>> constituencies, hence the above.  Our main concern has been that we
>>> first have an opportunity to work out a final, non-divisive charter
>>> with the board, after which constituency launches could begin in
>>> earnest.  In contrast, launching constituencies under the SIC
>>> charter
>>> would likely lock us into that framework and engender the very
>>> fragmentation the meeting is intended to help overcome.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Bill
>

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
  Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20091018/7fefa3d8/attachment.html>