NCUC & NCSG (and relevance to vertical integration discussion)

[Milton L Mueller]

Mary
As I said before, I don't think the decision to not copy NCUC-DISCUSS in these policy discussions was a deliberate attempt to exclude anyone. But it was a mistake nevertheless! One easily corrected, too. So I don't agree with your analysis below, and I think it's importnat to make that point. It's a question of accountability and of encouraging greater education and involvement among our members.

It is clear from the discussion that we were not just discussing wording, but substantive differences over policy. Indeed, I have often been told by Bill and others that people need to be educated more about this issue, that I was pushing too fast for agreement on a statement, etc.

It's abundantly clear that there were serious disagreements over policy, especially between Avri and me. If the members agree with Avri and not me, fine. I can roll with that. To prevent that discussion from being aired before the constituency was just wrong.

--MM

________________________________
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:22 PM
To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC & NCSG (and relevance to vertical integration discussion)

Hi everyone (esp. those members who - understandably - may be increasingly puzzled/frustrated by the confusion surrounding ICANN's restructuring of constituencies etc.),

Please don't think there is a list of "special people" conducting policy discussions that exclude you. As Avri notes, the ICANN non-commercial community has been re-organized into a Stakeholder Group (the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, or NCSG). Similarly, the other constituencies - Registries, Registrars, IP, Business and ISPs - have also been restructured as SGs (with the IPC, BC and ISPC now forming a single Commercial Stakeholder Group, or CSG). One of the ideas behind a SG structure is that more individuals, interests and constituencies will form and the ICANN community grow larger and more diverse.

NCUC is currently the only constituency within the NCSG. When all the various SGs were formally recognized at the last ICANN meeting, the NCSG established committees to deal with policy, administrative and other issues. The present Vertical Integration discussion took place within the NCSG Policy Committee (which, as Avri says, consists of all 6 Councillors and officers of BOTH the NCSG and NCUC), and was essentially a discussion over whether and how to frame a motion regarding a Policy Development Process (PDP) for Vertical Integration.

The discussion was largely over wording, process and clarifying various meanings and positions. The broader discussion upon which this was based were the public emails, statements and open discussions that took place here on the NCUC listserv and in other fora.

All the NCSG-Policy discussions were understood to have the objective of ascertaining the best position/proposal to put forward on behalf of the NCSG. There was a preliminary question as to whether there *might* be a different position taken as betwen the NCSG and NCUC, but it seems to me that everyone quickly clearly felt that a single, unified position/proposal was both desirable and possible.

I don't wish to speak on behalf of the other 5 Councillors, but I am 100% certain that all of us, and all the NCSG and NCUC officers who were part of those discussions, were always acting in the best interests of non-commercial users, whether they are technically part of NCUC or NCSG.

I hope this helps clarify the situation.

Cheers
Mary




Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu<mailto:mwong at piercelaw.edu>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>>
From:   Avri Doria <avri at LTU.SE>
To:     <NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
Date:   1/21/2010 6:43 PM
Subject:        Re: [ncsg-policy] How's this (edited motion on VI)
Hi,

I am sorry but there is the NCUC and there is the NCSG.  and while as of tadya there is only 1 member of the NCSG who is not also NCUC, I hope this wil not remain the case once we open NCSG membership.

The lists of special peple is the NCSG-Executive Committee, the Council members and the chair of the NCUC.  The list has an open archive.

Even in NCUC, there were multiple lists.

a.

On 22 Jan 2010, at 00:23, Jorge Amodio wrote:

>
> I agree with Milton and I'm really disturbed about the existence of a parallel list of "selected" people.
>
> We are constantly trying to avoid this modus operandi at ICANN and one of the reasons I joined NCUC/NCSG is because I thought it was an open space to exchange ideas, discuss and learn about policy, and with my participation I was trying also to contribute a little bit from the technical side since there is a big disconnect. No wonder why.
>
> Avri, with all due respect and please don't take it personal, but since you brought the GNSO kool-aid here now I find myself listening to dialogs that I don't understand where have been initiated, since I didn't have the opportunity to participate in person at any of the ICANN meetings I feel excluded, and I have to spend a lot of time looking for documents that seem difficult to find by design, etc.
>
> This is not good.
>
> I'm for transcripts, and I'm against separate mailing lists unless we are talking about specific working groups where the list is open to anybody to subscribe and read.
>
> My .02
> Jorge
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100122/b7120bf5/attachment.html>