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

[Brendler, Beau]

Well, so far I've had two form letters sent to me by e-mail. They've been sent to other members of my organization as well. I've also had two personal e-mails sent to me. And I've got copies of the same letters through two listservs. I (and my organization) have also been urged twice to publicly express my support for the NCUC's version of the charter. I'm all for grassroots, but I think there are issues, I have said before, with both charters. 
________________________________________
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:02 PM
To: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)

Please be careful about thinking endorsements
have been orchestrated. It's not been the case,
at least not in the negative sense of that word.

There was long discussion about the proposal on
the WSIS civil society Internet Governance Caucus
list
<http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance>.  It
was agreed the caucus would endorse the proposal
and individual sign-up by organizations was also
invited.  I can see a lot of names I recognize
and expect came from there, and also a few
members of the OECD's Civil Society Information
Society Advisory Council (CSISAC) where some of
the NCUC's executive committee also active.

As there are now two comments on the charter
petition page claiming the NCUC proposal fails in
terms of diversity and representativeness, I
think important to make clear there were efforts
to have the proposal discussed and supported. I
think the NCUC's sign-up efforts were quite
genuine.

Thanks,

Adam




>Hello
>
>On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Brendler, Beau
><<mailto:Brenbe at consumer.org>Brenbe at consumer.org>
>wrote:
>
>Carlos wrote:
>
>"I'm concern about the NCUC proposal because is
>very complicated to understand, and this means
>the continuity of the old participants."
>
>My sentiments exactly. Trying to explain that
>charter to consumer groups, for me, is a
>non-starter.
>
>
>Hello
>
>Even within the ICT space, ICANN is not so well
>known by everyone. On the task of outreach, one
>has to first explain what ICANN is, what it
>manages, then about the various constituencies
>and then about Public Participation and User's
>representation in ICANN. When all this already
>so complicated, the outreach effort has to
>explain the technical distinctions between two
>different User constituencies and this would add
>to all the confusion.
>
>As Adam points out outreach efforts require the
>support of ICANN and now this support also needs
>to be split between two different outreach
>efforts. We will have the at-Large outreach and
>then the NCSG outreach.
>
>Wolf talks about being silent as a way of
>expressing some of disagreements, but in an
>ecosystem of written records by way of
>documentation and public comments, 'silence'
>can't be read, except by an insightful inner
>circle, who themselves may not be able to act on
>the unspoken views.
>
>What probably deters us is the resignation that
>ALAC's comments and objections at this stage
>might not have an effect on the NCSG proposal
>which is half way into the process. I think we
>should go ahead and make our observations
>without worrying about the timing and impact of
>our comments. It is necessary to say the right
>thing rather than be withdrawn about the
>developments underway.
>
>The Civil Society endorsements that I see are
>not representative. There are CS groups
>endorsing the NCSG proposal but it is to be
>examined if these orchestrated endorsements
>reflect a universally balanced user's viewpoint.
> Nevertheless it goes on record and the record
>so created apparently looks good - so many
>signatures, so many endorsements from different
>corners !
>
>It is exactly for this reason that ALAC needs to
>speak up. There has been tremendous activity in
>the at-Large community particularly during the
>last 6 or 9 months, and ICANN might rather
>project the recent developments to get an idea
>of the potential for the at-Large community to
>emerge as a wider, truly representative voice
>and focus on its support to making the at-Large
>community evolve, fine-tune and grow further.
>
>There appear to be greater dangers of a subtle
>form of capture in the way NCSG proposal is
>taking shape. This is a broader consideration
>that needs to be debated further.
>
>Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>
>India.


_______________________________________________
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.