[governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support

[Mary Wong]

Lee, thank you for the kind words. I hope our proposal - imperfect
though it is - gets sufficient public support so that the Board will
seriously consider approving it.
 
Cheers
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 


>>> Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> 3/24/2009 7:08 AM >>>
Again, a quick round of (perhaps premature) applause for Bill, Mary and
the others who have obviously worked hard on enabling ICANN to operate
in an open and trasparent manner in at least one corner of its
operations.

I suspect some (of course not McTim) might be objecting to this because
it could show the other constituencies own processes in a comparatively
negative light.

Even the transition to ongoing operations is set up through a much
clearer than usual, well-defined process. Bravo.

Lee


________________________________________
From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 4:51 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim
Cc: Mary Wong
Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support

Hi McTim,

I'm puzzled by your objections, could you please explain.

On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:36 AM, McTim wrote:

> Hullo Mary,
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Mary Wong <MWong at piercelaw.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> 1. The NCSG proposal is inclusive (not divisive) and democratic.
>>
>> - Membership is open to both individuals and non-commercial
>> organizations;
>
> yes, but there is a long list of which of these folk are to be
> excluded.

The "long list" simply comprises organizations and individuals that
patently don't fit in a noncommercial group (e.g.  industry trade
associations, investors) and will be represented in other stakeholder
groups as the board has defined these.  The whole scheme of putting
actors into one stakeholder group and not another is ICANN's, not
ours, and it maps with standard practices in public policymaking
bodies (e.g. the new OECD framework) and indeed many standards
bodies.  If you have a problem with classification of actors per se,
sorry but there's a big world out there that for sound reasons are not
based on the IETF model, and ICANN's part of it.  The proposal just
says how the board's model is to be locally implemented by specifying
that the noncommercial users SG is for noncommercial users just as the
commercial users SG is for commercial users etc.  Moreover, it should
be recalled that we do include the possibility of flexibility
regarding orgs and individuals in ALAC, and others if they are not
ineligible due to their own or their organization’s membership in
another GNSO SG or the ccNSO.

If you want to file a public comment saying the whole architecture
stinks and SGs and constituencies should be abolished and replaced
with one big sand box in which consensus among actors with sharply
different interests will magically emerge through cool technical
reasoning, do that.  Or, file comments rejecting each and every SG.
But to reject just ours for being part of a larger framework alongside
others would be rather unfair.

> The Chair gets to decide, ultimately who can join.

No, the chair plus an elected committee of representatives.  Someone
has to review and decide on applications, and this is an appropriately
accountable and transparent way of doing that, guided by explicit
charter criteria.  It's not a secretive cabal in smoke filled room,
and I'm hard pressed to imagine plausible scenarios in which someone
with a credible claim to fit in the noncommercial rather than one of
the business SGs would be rejected.  And constituency approval is left
to the board, informed by a public comment period.

>>
>> - 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.
>
> Except for:
>
> " 3.4.4. As a transitional provision, the first election for the
> June 2009 ICANN
> meeting will elect three (3) NCSG Council Representatives, and the
> terms of the 3
> NCUC Council Representatives elected in October 2008 will run until
> June 2010."

Yes, Mary, Carlos and I would remain as 3 of the 6, just in the
transition period.  It would be useful to have some continuity in
engagement in the counsel's arcane work program, particularly at a
time when things are being restructured. This hardly represents
capture by an incumbent cabal, especially since the NCSG will just be
beginning reformulation and might have trouble coming up with six plug
and play candidates on the fly.

These objections seem like a pretty thin basis upon which to reject
the entire proposal, which was developed through an open and
transparent consultation process and continuously revised in
interaction with members, staff and board people over months, and is
far more flexible and democratic than other SG proposals on the
table.  BTW have you read the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) and
Registry Stakeholder Group proposals?  Will you be opposing these
too?  A pox on all ICANN's "houses"?

Thanks,

Bill


____________________________________________________________
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/20090324/100415f6/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