Debbie's comments on the charter review

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

In  response to this point.

If the Board approves constituencies before this charter is approved and this charter is approved, then the transition mechanism applies to the new constituency as well as it does to NCUC and they become an approved Interest-Group to be be reviewed in 6 months.

If the Board approves constituencies after they have approved this charter, then we have an interesting situation since they would have contradicted themselves.  They would have approved a charter that did not have constituencies and then they would have approved a constituency.  I do not believe the Board would do such an inconsistent  thing. But if they did, then we would have to discuss remedies at that point and one remedy would be to amend our charter to support the new Board mandated reality.  What I expect would happen is that during the review period for this new constituency, the issue would come up, and if after comments and discussion the Board was going to approve a constituency they would include a mandated change to our charter in the same, or accompanying motion.  Of course we would have to see at that time what the bottom up reaction from the SG to such top down behavior from the Board would be.  But as I said, I do not expect the Board to behave in such a peremptory manner and if they do, we will have lots of time to react before they actually do it.  

Concluding, I believe that the Board is sincere in indicating that they want to see the bottom-up charter that the NCSG produces and they want to consider that charter and whether it meets the mission and goals of ICANN and the GNSO on its own merits and not based on our concern for what they may decide to do.  Time enough to react to what they might do, when and if they do it.

thanks
a.



On 8 May 2010, at 01:35, Rosemary Sinclair wrote:

> Hi Wendy
> 
> Could the Board approve a Constituency and nominate it as part of NCSG if our Charter is silent on Constituencies?
> 
> An admin/procedural question...
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Rosemary
> Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy at SELTZER.COM>
> Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 10:15:51 
> To: <NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: Debbie's comments on the charter review
> 
> Regarding constituencies versus interest groups, I believe that the
> Charter and the Stakeholder Group will be stronger if we have the
> flexibility to form interest groups on a more fluid basis than
> Constituencies have offered in the past.  I think Constituencies have
> often served as silos, hindering consensus-building and changing too
> slowly to reflect the dynamics of interests in Internet communications
> and technology.  They focus us on exclusive definitions rather than
> inclusion of those who want to contribute.
> 
> I support the concept of Interest Group as described in the current draft.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> 
> Avri Doria wrote:
> ...
>>> 
>>> About my comments:  My concern is that we should provide for
>>> constituencies and I have inserted constituencies throughout.  The Board
>>> continues to recognize the constituency structure and has not indicated
>>> the level of support and recognition that will be given to Interest
>>> Groups. Since it remains unclear what resources, standing and
>>> recognition interests groups will have within the ICANN community (by
>>> the Board, Staff, Work Groups/Teams, ACs, other constituencies and SGs,
>>> etc.), I think we should continue to recognize and support
>>> constituencies and not dissolve them in this charter until the NCSG
>>> receives clarity on that point.  I think we may be doing the NCUC and
>>> non commercial users a disservice by converting constituencies into
>>> Interest Groups without considering the ripple effect.  While those of
>>> you who have been involved with ICANN leadership much longer than I may
>>> have spoken with Board and staff about this issue, the Interest Group
>>> concept is missing from the messaging and documents about ICANN
>>> structure and engagement.  
>> 
>> 
>> As was discussed when Rosemary made the same suggestion, the Board has left this up to us.  If this is what the Stakeholder group wants, and this is what I am understanding the consensus to be.  The Board wants to see the charter thatNCSG wants to propose.  The Board has made this very clear in discussion we have had with them - they are not limiting us to the Staff's interpretation of the previous Board's viewpoint.
>> 
>> I also point out, that 2 Board approved Stakeholder Groups, albeit transitional, already have charters that do not include Board approved Constituencies.  But that is in sense beside the point.  It is up to the consensus of the NCSG membership.
>> 
>> Additionally as Rafik mentioned in the previous discussion o tis point, in the Stakeholder/Constituencies Work Team, they have left the whole issue of support open for both Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies - the choice being a bottom up choice within each group.
>> 
>> If I find that after you email, the consensus of the group has changed and people agree with you that we should have constituencies instead of Interest-Groups, I will change the charter accordingly.  However, at this point without some evidence of a changed consensus, I cannot make this particular change.
>> 
>> As I said it is up to the NCSG  to present the charter it wants to the Board.  Should they decide that they want us to have constituencies, they will send it back telling us so and we can discuss and negotiate with them if we wish.  On the other hand if they accept the charter, as I expect they will, then it is up to the Board, and the staff acting on their will, to make sure that our Stakeholder Group with its Interest-groups get the proper and equivalent level of support.  And it will be up to our leadership to make sure that happens.  That is what it means to have bottom process, approved by the Board and supported by the Staff.
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org
> phone: +1.914.374.0613
> Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> 
>