[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Event News

Tue May 28 07:54:47 CEST 2013

Hi,

To edify is not to educate.  

Yes, we are divided.  So we should be debating this internally to see if we can find a common position?  Have we had a dialogue yet, other that a few of us venting at a few others on a email list.  Is that enough of a debate on a serious and perhaps fundamental issue.

As I indicated in an earlier note, the Issue with Staff capture is bigger that just us and it is something where I think it is worth looking at making common cause with other  SG/Cs on this one.  Starting with the statement i floated a draft of.  

As for the Reconsideration letter, I think for that we need to be discussing the next steps, and we don't need, and perhaps don't want, a ICANN sponsored session to discuss request a Section 3 Independent Review.

avri

On 27 May 2013, at 23:52, Edward Morris wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> hi,
> 
> sorry it took my so long to read the whole thing.
> I had only read the first paragraph and said what do i care about an NCUC workshop.
> 
> But after all the controversy etc, i decided to actually go back and read it.
> Biil, its brilliant.
> Really, i think a good debate that edifies on a topic everyone is buzzing about is just the ticket.
> 
> 
> Hi Avri,
> 
> Thanks for responding. I wish we could get some more input on the isssue.
> 
> I like Bill, I respect Bill, on this question I disagree with Bill. 
> 
> We are not an educational organisation. We are an advocacy group. Open / closed is a question we're divided on. I think it's a great issue for the Internet Governance Forum and I'm sure it will be a blockbuster session in Bali that will keep people awake and talking. I came close to sleeping often in Baku during some of the sessions and the fact that under Bill's leadership we'll be doing interesting and vibrant programming in Bali is a great plus. But...
> 
> ICANN is a different matter. There we should be using programming to push our positions, purposeful education if you will. We're pretty unified on the problems with the GAC, staff rule, privacy in WHOIS...we have the Recon, the whole policy/ implementation thing...and we're going to give a balanced program on an issue we're divided on? Why? As a group it doesn't matter which way the Board goes. Some of us will be happy, some of us will be sad, many of us will be conflicted or don't care.
> 
> To justify this by saying it's linked to our IGF presentation,,,that's the tail wagging the dog. Our first priority, the reason we exist, is ICANN. I see no necessary connection between communication output at both events.
> 
> I would rather use the opportunity on site programming offers to kick start a dead issue like UDRP Review than to highlight an issue we're divided on. Even better let's get people talking about the MS issues you (Avri) are highlighting in your great petition. Heck, we could use the programming to kick off the petition drive.
> 
> I would be interested in hearing what others think. 
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> cheers,
> 
> avri
> 
> On 25 May 2013, at 12:20, William Drake wrote:
> 
> > Hello
> >
> > The IGF's Multistakeholder Advisory Group met here in Geneva over the past few days, and we approved the main lines of the IGF meeting in Bali 22-25 October.  The workshop proposals put forth by NCUC and its members fared well in the review process and should all go forward.  Official confirmation is pending, needed first are some last looks at the approved workshops as a group and efforts to prompt mergers between related sessions etc.
> >
> > On another front, we have several events under consideration for the ICANN Duban meeting 14-18 July.  First, it appears that NCUC member the Association for Progressive Communication will be organizing a capacity building 'winter school' on Internet governance for some government and stakeholder attendees just prior to the ICANN meeting, i.e. 10-12 (Wed. - Friday) July.  This will likely be held off site at a university campus.   The last session on Friday will be a joint event organized by NCUC on how we work in GNSO and how to get involved etc.  This could be sort of a prequel to broader workshop I proposed for Bali, Civil Society in ICANN’s Multistakeholderism: The GNSO Case http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=249.  Basically, it'd be an outreach effort geared toward African civil society in particular.  Afterwards, NCUC will sponsor a reception for attendees—nothing swank obviously, but a good bridge building opportunity.
> >
> > I am also talking with staff about securing a space within the main ICANN Durban program for an NCUC workshop.  A priori, on both substantive and effort optimization grounds I'm inclined to do another prequel, this one to our IGF Bali workshop, The Debate on ‘Closed’ Generic Top Level Domains  http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=253.  After all, it'd be nice to sponsor a debate on a hot topic in front of a full ICANN crowd a couple of days before the Board may take action one way or another on the matter (although that expectation could mean some push back from ICANN on the topic, we'll see).  This seems like a useful contribution we can make, and we have members and other colleagues who'll be in Durban who have strong views on the various sides of the matter who could serve as speakers.  The other option I thought about was to broaden the focus and do a workshop on the GAC's Beijing Communique, and the community responses to it.  But this might be seen in a less favorable light in some quarters, plus we can get into that via the closed topic anyway.
> >
> > Staff are asking for me to submit the workshop request within a few days, so time's a bit pressed.  I'd be interested to hear from members if the above sounds ok, or if there's another workshop topic we ought to be considering.  Needless to say, if we were to strike out in a new direction rather than take the path of least resistance with a closed generic prequel, there'd have to be a group effort to organize it, starting fairly soon.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > **********************************************************
> > William J. Drake
> > International Fellow & Lecturer
> > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> > University of Zurich, Switzerland
> > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
> > ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> > william.drake at uzh.ch
> > www.williamdrake.org
> > ***********************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 

_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss