[ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)

[Brendler, Beau]

I feel like I have something of a conflict of interest, since I have a constituency proposal before the community for consumers. I can go as far as to say I have some concerns with both charters that I hope will be ironed out during the public comment and review process.

________________________________________
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 7:11 PM
To: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)

Cheryl asked me to try to draft something that
illustrates the divided nature of the ALAC on
this issue, and for those opposed to the charter,
to try to explain in as simple a way as possible what the issues are.

Any comment that is formally submitted must be
done so within about 8 hours of my sending this
message, so we do not have much time left. The
only ALAC members who have spoken on the subject
to date (in this thread) are Adam, me and Cheryl.
Others have participated earlier, and I have
tried to capture their thoughts and feelings as well.

Hopefully Cheryl and Adam will say whether I have
captured their views properly. If not,
adjustments will be made. Other comments are
welcome as well.  But we do not have much time.

I do not believe that we can be completely silent
on this issue. We need to say something.

Alan


=================================
Comment on the NCSG proposals

The following comment has the support of a number
of ALAC members including the Chair, but has not
yet been subjected to a formal ALAC vote. That
will happen during our next teleconference on April 28.

The ALAC is divided on the support of the
proposal submitted by Robin Gross of the NCUC.

Some members feel that although there are some
problems with the proposal, it generally
addresses their concerns, and in particular, the
de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies
is a very good move in the right direction.
Problems notwithstanding, the proposal should receive Board approval.

Others feel that the issues still outstanding are
sufficient to withhold Board support at this time. These issues include:

·         The issue of Council seats cannot be
ignored. Although policy will likely be
architected by Working Groups with open
participation, it will be Council that decides
what policies to address and what the WG charters
will include. Without a voice on Council, a
Constituency may not be able to effectively
participate in the discussions leading to these
decisions. And without an effective voice, there
will be little incentive to bring new,
non-commercial players into the gTLD policy arena
– one of the main reasons for the current
reorganization and for the significant growth in
the NCSG weighting compared to the NCUC in the current model.

·         Although the inclusion of individuals
is satisfying on a number of levels, the proposed
voting structure makes the NCSG very vulnerable
to take-over, particularly with the lack of a fee
structure being specified, and the lack of rules
or proposed process which could even verify that
all individual members are in fact identifiable
people acting on their own accord. This could,
over a period straddling two annual meeting,
allow takeover of all council seats, reinforcing the first bullet above.

·         There is little evidence that those
submitting this charter accept these potential
problems and have identified a way to resolve
them through some sort of amendments once Board approval is given.

·         It now looks like there may be one or
more actual new non-commercial Constituencies
that could receive Board approval. It would be
far more satisfying to defer the long-term
charter of the NCSG until these Constituencies
could be present at the table and speak on their
own behalf. Until such time, an interim model
linking seats to Constituencies could be used.
Clearly that model would need to be replaced
prior to the existence of more than six constituencies.

In summary, the ALAC is not of a single mind.
Some people feel very strongly that the
inadequacies of the proposed charter are
sufficient reason to not accept it .Others feel
that although there are some problems, it has
sufficient merit to receive approval with the
belief that any problems will be addressed as time goes on.

The charter proposed by Cheryl Preston does not
have the exact same failings as the NCUC version,
but for a number of reasons has not received any
strong support within the ALAC and for this reason we cannot advocate approval.



_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

***
Scanned

**
This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.