SPAM-LOW: Re: NCUC & NCSG (and relevance to vertical integration discussion)

[Rosemary Sinclair]

Hi everyone

I'm happy to be in or out (or on or off...) - whichever is most helpful! 

On the issue: in other worlds I work in the discussion is about Vertical Separation as the better structure for driving competitive outcomes - and hence better outcomes for end users. So I am in favour of a full PDP to determine whether the Internet is a different market where VI would deliver better public interest outcomes

Re process - I think it is VERY important for NCSG - as the  Group in ICANN's policy forming GNSO  representing Non Commercial ( public interest) perspective directly - to have a view on the PDP on VI 

ALAC and the community generally will have public interest concerns also but NCSG has a key role on the Council

There are much better wordsmiths than me among the other NCSG Councillors and NCSG Exco - so I am happy to be guided on the minute wording options

On Constituencies, I understand the Consumer one will be proposed - with Australian, France and Mexico Communications Consumer Organisations are part of the Constituency....

Cheers

Rosemary
Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus

-----Original Message-----
From: "William Drake" <william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:30:14 
To: <NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: NCUC & NCSG (and relevance to vertical integration discussion)

I fully support what Mary says here. Everyone, Milton included, has used the NCSG-policy list, which includes our non-NCUC NGSG councilor, for those parts of the VI discussion of the minute wording options on whether and how NGSG councilors might reach some consensus on how to vote in council, with the understanding that once we were getting somewhere and had a proposal or at least clearer options to choose from this would come back to the members list for discussion.  In my experience this was not really a departure from prior NCUC-only practices, and when at times the NCUC-members list was used for this purpose we didn't get a lot of input so it wasn't obvious a lot of people really wanted to be part of the initial fumbling and groping about in the first place. But sure if people would like to part of the arguing back and forth there's no reason not to do it here in the open air and we'll just copy Rosemary, who's not on NCUC-members.  


Best,


Bill





On Jan 22, 2010, at 2:21 AM, Mary Wong wrote:

 
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 <http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php> 
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 <http://ssrn.com/author=437584> 

>>> 
 
 
 From: Avri Doria <avri at LTU.SE <mailto:avri at LTU.SE> > 
 To: <NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu <mailto: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
> 
> 
 

 ***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch <mailto: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/20100122/65a38348/attachment.html>