[governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support

Mon Mar 23 19:35:23 EDT 2009

I'd like to chip in briefly here with my two cents' worth. As a relative newcomer to the ICANN juggernaut and its processes, I corroborate others' comments on the complexity and limitations that the new NCSG will be working within.

I hope everyone who cares about bottom-up, multi-stakeholder governance AND broad-based user participation will support the proposal for the new Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). Milton has already given some reasons why this is an important turning point for civil society involvement; let me just add two clarifying points:

1. The NCSG proposal is inclusive (not divisive) and democratic.

- Membership is open to both individuals and non-commercial organizations; voting is done directly by each member.
- Members may (but are not compelled) to form Constituencies; members may, regardless of Constituency, join working groups and participate in ICANN activities.
- Constituencies are ultimately scrutinized and approved by the ICANN Board and not by the NCSG Chair. As such, the NCSG Chair (and the NCSG Policy Committee) cannot influence the formation of Constituencies. 
- Constituency formation is thus separated from the NCSG "umbrella" structure, thereby encouraging new members to join without having to specify a Constituency of particular interest (or if none currently exists, to take on the formidable task of applying to form one.)

2. The NCSG proposal recognizes the breadth of issues and divergence of views amongst a broad base of members, and facilitates minority representation.

- Members are free to form or join up to 3 Constituencies; each Constituency is guaranteed a place on the NCSG Policy Committee (alongside the Chair and the elected Councillors.)
- If a particular issue gains a certain level of support across Constituencies or a percentage of the membership, the NCSG Councillors are obliged to vote in favor of a Working Group being formed at Council level to address that issue.

(NOTE: as Milton pointed out, the new ICANN structure that the Board has set up will be based on 4 Stakeholder Groups (SGs), of which the NCSG is one, the others being Registrars, Registries and Commercials. Each SG elects a certain number of Councillors. NOTE ALSO that - unlike current ICANN practice - policy work will NOT be done at Council level, but, rather, within Working Groups set up specifically for that purpose.)

3. The NCSG proposal will not entrench an existing group of members/office-holders.

- In the new SG structure, the existing Non-Commercial User Constituency (NCUC) group automatically dissolves. Each current NCUC member (individual or organizational) has to decide whether or not to join the new NCSG, and no existing NCUC committee or position carries over into the new structure.

DISCLOSURE: I am a new NCUC Councillor and helped with the finalization of the NCSG proposal. It is my belief that the NCSG proposal - of all the proposed alternatives and within the limitations of the byzantine ICANN structure and its labyrinthian processes - best addresses the issues of greater individual and more user involvement in ICANN, and ensures minority representation while minimizing fruitless and wasteful in-fighting amongst civil society and other non-commercial interests.

Thanks for your attention, and, hopefully, supportive action,
Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu 
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php 
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 

>>> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 3/23/2009 10:22 AM >>>
>  >
>>  Should not the caucus as a whole make a statement?
>
>Yes, that would be lovely. I'd be happy to develop a first draft for 
>circulation here,

would very much like to see something like this, and having read the 
proposed NCSG charter would very likely support.

>or Robin Gross may be doing the same thing so I will check with her 
>first. And it seems that if you and I can agree on someting like 
>this, the entire caucus ought to be able to as well!
>
>>  For that matter, we should also make a statement regarding the new
>>  "cybersafety" constituency proposal.
>
>I would not oppose this but I am less keen on being negative than on 
>being positive.
>
>In other words, if the integrated, more democratic NCSG charter 
>proposed by NCUC is adopted, there is nothing wrong with anti-porn, 
>pro-censorship advocates having their own caucus/constituency within 
>that framework. The difference is that they don't get guaranteed 
>Council seats and they don't get to fragment civil society into 
>warring factions competing for votes on a Council and constantly 
>badmouthing each other. Whatever positions they get, they have to 
>earn by gaining broad support among noncommercial stakeholders. Note 
>also that there are already hundreds of expressions of opposition to 
>the so-called "cybersafety" constituency proposal.

Thanks Milton, very good example of why the NCUC's approach makes sense.

Adam

>  >
>>  If we spend the bulk of our efforts on IGF matters, and zero on the
>>  current system of IG, this caucus will never have any real influence
>>  on IG.
>
>Absolutely agreed, McTim. Always puzzled by this gap....
>
>Milton Mueller
>Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
>------------------------------
>Internet Governance Project:
>http://internetgovernance.org 
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org 
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090323/d7011232/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance