Proposed Consumer Constituency Charter - comments?

[Beau Brendler]

Avri wrote:

>>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.<<<

Having written the charter more than three years ago now, and having seen it go through several rewrites over the course of at least three, possibly four public comment periods, I can tell you what you are looking for is in the words of the mission statement:

"...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"]..."

This language was written in part out of frustration with the then At-Large, and with the then NCUC. The at-large did not take much of an interest then on these issues; its interests seemed primarily in self-analysis and realizing the dream of new gTLDs. The NCUC, much smaller then, was focused on issues of free speech and freedom of expression, to the degree that its ideology ruled out just about any other issue as co-opted by moneyed interests. In addition, it appeared, to me anyway, the NCUC's focus or hope was to limit ICANN's power and scope as much as possible, and make it go away. Actually, in my opinion, if ICANN doesn't do a better job of enforcing contracts and compelling compliance, then it should go away, because it would then be a big waste of time and money and a fraudulent construct that does more harm than good by pretending to do something it isn't. But it doesn't appear to be going away soon so its behavior needs to be challenged on behalf of the public interest. The contracted parties should not be winning every argument the way they do now.

If it's the name of the constituency that seems to confuse people, well, change its name to the contract compliance constituency or something. But arguments for its continued existence or non-existence should be based on merit, not on whether it may or may not have too many quasi-commercial parties involved. That's just a smokescreen -- the consumer constituency's charter had always been much more stringent about who it would or would not allow to be a member based on commercial ties or interests than the NCUC's or the NCSG's. The way the consumer constituency's charter has been written, you can't be a member and own a registrar. You can't make a principal living off consulting for governments or companies on ICANN matters and be a member. And so on. We need to move past that now.

If it takes constituencies to flesh out the NCSG's scope of policy work to include broader matters than freedom of speech and expression, then new constituencies should be welcomed, not feared. We need more people working on RAA issues and contract compliance and defining registration abuse and the rights of registrants (and how their behavior effects the general public) outside the core group of people doing it now, who also tend to be the same people who are interested in seeing the consumer constituency go forward). 

-----Original Message-----
>From: Rosemary Sinclair <rosemary.sinclair at UNSW.EDU.AU>
>Sent: Jun 30, 2011 3:34 AM
>To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>Subject: Proposed Consumer Constituency Charter - comments?
>
>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
>>>