[governance] Call for Action: Your comments can Support

[Fouad Bajwa]

Is there a proposal for who from which country should be invited to
participate in the proposal? For example, many of the people that join
ICANN activities in a lot of cases are from the private sector with
minimal participation from the CS. Sometimes not having a clear
understanding and criteria for joining is the issue.

Many members to the ICANN do represent non-commercial stakeholders
like Associations and Alliances but at the end of the day those
alliances are comprises of private sector and commercial entities.

A good process would be to propose that IGC members that are willing
to participate in such a proposal be invited to forward their
nominations for the formulation of the initial group to the process
and similarly to other well trust NCSGs around the globe.

Just my two cents.

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Mary Wong <MWong at piercelaw.edu> wrote:
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>



-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
Answering all your technology questions
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
____________________________________________________________
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