Proposed Consumer Constituency Charter - comments?

[Alain Berranger]

Dear Rosemary, dear colleagues,

I find the Consumers Constituency mission statement below quite
appropriate.

I'm not clear why we need more than one Consumers Constituency in ICANN?

Also, I find the members' "taxonomy" of ICANN a bit complex, but probably
that way for historical reasons I need to become familiar with. Other global
multi-stakeholders organizations - like the Global Knowledge Partnership
Foundation  for instance - often organize around the following 5 primary
categories: government or public sector, business or private sector (for
profit), NGOs or private sector (not for profit), Academia and Individuals.
 Sub-categories can then emerge as needed - so a Consumers Constituency
would fit well under the "Individuals" primary category. There is always
some overlap of course (a public university or a public research centre
could be classified under either the public sector or academia), but I find
the 5 categories above one of the most user-friendly "taxonomy" and a good
working compromise. The more homogeneous a members' category the better to
flush out sectoral issues of common interests.

Best, Alain


On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:34 AM, Rosemary Sinclair <
rosemary.sinclair at unsw.edu.au> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Here's the link Avri has set up to the docs...
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Consumer+Constituency+%28CC%29+-+candidate
>
> Here's the submitted version of the Mission....
>
> 1.2     Mission
> The intended purpose of the Consumers Constituency is to serve as the
> conduit for consumer interests as they relate to the Internet and defined
> within the scope of ICANN.  The major areas of consumer interest are fraud,
> spam, phishing, identity theft, and privacy [defined within the ICANN scope
> as registration abuse, safety, and stability]; WHOIS; the Registrar
> Accreditation Agreement and the behavior of registrars, registries,
> resellers, domainers and other entities [defined within ICANN's scope as
> "compliance"]; and new gTLDs.  The focus of the Consumers Constituency will
> be to ensure that consumers' safety, security, stability, usability, access,
> and other appropriate concerns regarding the DNS are adequately represented
> within ICANN policy development.
>
> Let's get feedback around the version of the Charter that reflects the
> interest of the people who support the
> Proposed constituency - we might be able to find a way through or at least
> clarify the views
>
> Cheers
>
> Rosemary
>
> Rosemary Sinclair
> Director | External Relations
> Australian School of Business | Level 3 Building L5 | UNSW | Sydney  NSW
>  2052
> Direct:  +61 2 9385 6228 | Fax: +61 2 9385 5933
> Email: rosemary.sinclair at unsw.edu.au  www.asb.unsw.edu.au
>
>        EQUIS accredited for 5 years
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
> William Drake
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 June 2011 4:42 PM
> To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: Results of the Chartering process
>
> Hi
>
> On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> >  I would like to point out that there is nothing wrong in us helping the
> commercial actors in the Consumer area to find their way to the CSG.  Just
> as the CSG has leant a helping hand in the NCSG growth, I think it
> appropriate that we should now try to help them as much, not only to show
> our gratitude but also to allow them to experience the same benefits we have
> found in diversity.
>
> Diabolical, I love it. Certainly, if there must be a new "consumer" space
> then it should cut across both SGs.  But I still have to say that after a
> couple of years of this being on the table I've still not heard a really
> crisp and clear definition of what it would work on substantively that isn't
> already being followed, however unevenly, by existing groupings and people.
>  Maybe if there's a new construction with a big sign it will draw new bodies
> into the ICANNsphere and increase the level of engagement on a distinctive
> set of issues, but one does have to wonder...
>
> More generally, while I take Avri's earlier point that irrespective of what
> we were discussing in the past re: focusing on interest groups,
>
> > Constituencies mean Nomcom committee seats and the possibility of filling
> comments that the Board is willing to read because they are from a known
> entity, and because any resources from ICANn will be given to constituencies
>
> I'm still having difficulty getting my head around the substantive
> arguments for proliferation.  The Academic Constituency concept is a case in
> point.  Unless we're talking about higher ed operational issues (which
> presumably would fit in NPOC), what set of GNSO-related issues are specific
> and distinct to academics and not addressed by NCUC?  If, alternatively,
> having distinctive issues to work on is unnecessary and we're viewing
> constituencies more as sort of affinity subgroups, here too I have to wonder
> about the need.  Academics, including those here, have a variety of
> intellectual/political orientations and areas of specialization, there's no
> particular "academic perspective" that needs to represented and isn't now,
> and we already work together in NCUC.  As to the Avri's organizational
> points, we already don't have enough time to file comments and having a
> constituency might not change that, and resources have hardly flowed to our
> existing constituency (whereas I couldn't help noticing Danny Younger saying
> on an ALAC list that At-Large and ALAC Support Activities are budgeted at
> $5,427,000.).  The Nomcom committee seat case is more obvious; there was
> recently a brief discussion (i.e. about three emails) concerning the
> "academic" slot on the nomcom, which someone in the ALACsphere argued had to
> remain set aside only for university network administration folks.I pointed
> out that academia's a bit broader than that but nobody replied so voila it
> stayed that way..
>
> Anyway, if people decide they really want to do it I imagine I'd join an
> Academic Constituency, but first wouldn't it be useful to specify the
> potential benefits of launching multiple constituencies in NCSG.?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
> >
> >
> > On 28 Jun 2011, at 16:12, mary.wong at law.unh.edu wrote:
> >
> >> Hi - I support the concept of a CC in both the CSG and the NCSG. Not
> that it's NCSG business to push for one in the CSG, but the possibility
> should clear the way for a purely NC CC to be formed within the NCSG. If one
> does eventually form within the CSG, the two CCs could work together to
> advance a fuller consumer agenda and awareness. For now, the CC that could
> form within the NCSG will have to follow both the newly-approved
> constituency formation process AND abide by the new NCSG Charter (once
> formally approved by the NCSG membership).
> >>
> >> On a possible Academic Constituency, Rosemary and I thought it would
> make sense given (1) the number of individuals that are academics and
> researchers who span a number of specialty areas, from technical to law to
> political science and who are already involved in NC issues; (2) the
> possibility that NCSG members can join more than one constituency; (3) the
> possibility that some academics and researchers may wish to be more closely
> associated with an Academic Constituency than any other and so choose to
> join that rather than, say, NCUC or CC; (4) the indications from the Board,
> Nom Com etc. that greater academic participation at ICANN is to be welcomed;
> and (5) the value that an Academic Constituency may be able to provide, in
> the form of papers, public comments and so on.
> >>
> >> Rafik, since you were the NCSG Councilor the Board thought would be the
> one to reach out to the academic community, I'd be interested (like
> Rosemary) to hear your thoughts as I don't want to impose or tread on
> anyone's turf either.
> >>
> >> Hope everyone who was in Singapore had a productive meeting and an
> enjoyable visit, and are safely home without suffering too much jet lag!
> >>
> >> Mary
> >>
>



--
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
http://www.jumo.com/ict4dk
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Vice-Chair, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org
Vice Chair, Canadian Foundation for the Americas - www.focal.ca
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20110701/42642408/attachment.html>