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

Thu Apr 16 09:16:06 EDT 2009

I guess the time is passed now, but, to be frank, I also have a political problem. My organization would be concerned about aligning itself with CP80. Meanwhile, "civil society" is being organized to make public comments in favor of the NCUC charter, which I find problematic because of its voting system, because I don't think it offers much to newcomers, and because it's not clear how well minority viewpoints would be represented. If there's no "hammering out" phase, then I guess I'm either left to wait and see, or to withdraw the consumer constituency petition (or withdraw from the constituency and let Holly carry it on).
________________________________________
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 10:16 PM
To: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG  Charter(s)

Beau, as I understand it, the Board will accept
or reject presumably based on the their own
perspective and the input received from the
public comments. The only opportunity for change
is if the Board rejects. If they accept, it is
(until a change is required or forced) cast in concrete.

Alan

At 15/04/2009 07:26 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
>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.

_______________________________________________
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.