[ALAC] [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders?

[William Drake]

Hi Roberto,

Thanks for your reply, glad we're talking about this stuff, helpful.

On Oct 18, 2009, at 1:01 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>
> Bill,
>
> We might have a communication problem.
> What I meant, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that:
>
> - the NCUC was against the creation of constituencies as groups that  
> had
> automatic voting seat(s) in the Council
> - groups did not see any interest in doing the work of creating
> constituencies if they were guaranteed no seats in the Council

If that is what you meant, then yes indeed we have a communication  
problem.  You wrote,

"But the main point for the SIC to maintain the concept of  
constituency, against the open opposition of NCUC," which sounded to  
me like you were saying the main point for the SIC is to maintain the  
concept of constituency, against the open opposition of NCUC.  Sorry  
for my confusion.

Bear in mind, I'e been hearing this kind of thing for months now,  
including from board members in MC, and there's list traffic this  
morning indicating that others here were not clear on the point.  So  
especially at a time when some ALAC folks are proposing  
constituencies, it's a cause for concern when someone in your position  
of authority appears to be saying NCUC opposes the whole concept.   
That would be the RySG, not us.  (BTW, why did SIC ok RySG eliminating  
constituencies in their charter?  I never understood the rationale for  
not having harmonized structures across SGs, and it makes the  
misimpression about NCUC's charter which explicitly provides for  
constituencies seem all the more odd.)

Entirely separate from the principal of constituencies are two issues:

*Whether council seats should be hard wired.  On this we agree with  
the SIC, as you know.  I understand there are folks here who feel  
differently, and say nobody will want to do the work of launching a  
constituency if they don't automatically get a council seat.  I'm not  
convinced that's true---I know I and others I've talked to wouldn't  
feel that's necessarily a barrier, if per the NCUC proposed charter  
constituencies could run candidates in an open election and in all  
likelihood get one that way---but I understand the concern and that's  
a design issue we ought to be able to talk through and build confidence.

*Whether constituencies should be formed soon under the SIC/staff  
transitional charter, rather than waiting a little while until a  
mutually satisfactory final arrangement can be arrived at.  We remain  
concerned that doing it under the SIC/staff version would lock that in  
and make a joint review and revision impossible.  The timing here is  
up to you folks on the board, not us.  We'd prefer to resolve things  
with you ASAP, and constituency launches could then proceed as soon as  
there are viable proposals.  Unfortunately, I think NCUC folks have  
contributed to confusion on this point by saying the review should  
happen within a year, which some have processed as meaning we want to  
wait a year before anything can be launched.  Within a year doesn't  
mean in a year, we can do this as soon as you're ready.


> Is this a fair representation of the reality, yes or no? If no, I  
> apologize,
> as I did really miss something important. If, on the other hand, the  
> answer
> is yes, I stand behind my whole post.
>
> The question, as I understood it, was to find a balance that could  
> have
> taken into account to the maximum extent possible these two  
> different and
> apparently radically opposed positions. The fact that the solution  
> is being
> shot from both sides confirms that it was not an easy problem, and  
> that
> positions were really opposed. The point is now where we go from  
> here. Can
> we discuss and see if this is a solution that can work or not?

I sure hope so, and we are looking forward to meeting with the board  
and getting the process started.  But let's make sure we understand  
the positions and the differences between them accurately, that'll  
help facilitate things a productive dialogue.
>
> To make statements that imply that SIC has not read the NCUC  
> charters is not
> helpful.

Didn't mean to imply this, but rather that if you believe NCUC opposes  
constituencies as you appeared to be saying, you might look again at  
the NCUC charter which endorses constituencies and suggests mechanisms  
for their formation and collaboration.

> We have two possibilities, one is to get together and to make it
> work, the other one is to insist that the bad and ugly SIC has  
> imposed a
> top-down solution against the will of the masses.

I didn't characterize the SIC as bad and ugly.  It is unquestionably  
true though that the SIC imposed a solution that was opposed by NCUC's  
80 organizational and 87 individual members and a wide array of non- 
member supporters and was supported by 3 people.  If you don't like  
calling this top down, ok, give me another term for something done by  
the board over the strenuous opposition of the community in question.   
I'm not hung up on language, just facts.

> I see these as alternative
> positions, for the simple fact that accepting and propagating the  
> latter
> means not to have understood (or to pretend not having understood) the
> amount of consultation, negotiation and compromise that went into the
> solution, which is the exact opposite of having imposed a top-down  
> view.

Unfortunately, the consultation, negotiation and compromise didn't  
really involve NCUC.  But we can still do that, and very much look  
forward to working with you in Seoul and beyond to arrive at a lasting  
solution that is supported by the actually existing NC community.

All the best,

Bill
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>> Sent: Saturday, 17 October 2009 11:58
>> To: Roberto Gaetano
>> Cc: At-Large Worldwide; ALAC Working List
>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders?
>>
>> Hi Roberto,
>>
>> May I just correct once again one whopping bit of bad info, please.
>>
>> On Oct 17, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>
>>> Beau,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> By the way, is it true what I heard that the three newly appointed
>>>> GNSO people have now been hard-wired in to two-year terms? I don't
>>>> really see a constituency model working under those circumstances.
>>>> Who's going to join a constituency if they have to wait
>> two years to
>>>> be able to directly elect a representative? No consumer group I am
>>>> aware of is going to want to do that.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that we will need to clarify many things in Seoul, one of
>>> which is the reason for certain decisions of the SIC.
>>>
>>> For instance, the SIC has decided, after long discussion,
>> not to have
>>> an automatic link between creation of a constituency and
>> establishment
>>> of a seat in the Council. The reasons against this position include
>>> what you correctly point out, i.e. that it will be more
>> difficult to
>>> get people's interest if there's no immediate
>> representation in terms
>>> of voting rights.
>>> However, there are also reasons for taking this approach.
>> One of these
>>> is that we have to avoid the "frivolous" creation of constituencies
>>> for the simple purpose of getting a vote. A bit like create empty
>>> shells as registrars to have a higher firing power for getting
>>> valuable names.
>>> Another
>>> observation is that in the "old" council it was exactly the
>> fact that
>>> the creation of a new constituency would have altered the voting
>>> balance that de facto prevented the creation of any new
>> constituency
>>> in 10 years.
>>>
>>> But the main point for the SIC to maintain the concept of
>>> constituency, against the open opposition of NCUC, but to keep it
>>> without an automatic
>>
>> NCUC is NOT and has NEVER been against the concept of
>> constituencies, period.  I do not understand what the purpose
>> would be in telling ALAC people something about NCUC that is
>> patently untrue, but it really does not facilitate trust
>> building and the collegial resolution of the issue. The
>> charter NCUC submitted, and which you set aside without
>> comment, has an page of clear language about the formation
>> and operation of constituencies in Section 2.3.
>> http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/ncsg-petition
> -charter.pdf
>>   I would encourage you to read it if you have not.  A few
>> key bits of note include:
>>
>> -------------
>>
>> *Constituencies are self-defined groupings of NCSG members organized
>> around some shared policy goals (e.g. consumer protection, privacy);
>> shared identity (e.g., region or country of origin, gender, language
>> group); type of organization (e.g., research networks, philanthropic
>> foundations) - or any other grouping principle that might affect
>> members' stance on domain names policy.
>>
>> *There is no requirement that NCSG members join a constituency.
>>
>> *When at least 3 organizational members or at least 10
>> individual NCSG
>> members volunteer to join the Constituency on the public list within
>> two months of the publication of the notification of intent the
>> prospective Constituency becomes eligible to schedule a
>> meeting (which
>> can be either in person or online).
>>
>> *The eligible constituency holds a public meeting(s) to draft a
>> charter and appoint an official representative of the constituency.
>> The meeting(s) can be online but must be open to observation by the
>> general public.
>>
>> *The proposed constituency charter is submitted to the NCSG Policy
>> Committee for ratification.
>>
>> *Once accepted by the PC the constituency application will be
>> sent to
>> the ICANN Board for approval. The Board shall also serve as the
>> vehicle for appeals to NCSG decisions on the recognition of a
>> constituency.
>>
>> *Constituencies have a right to: 1.	Place one voting
>> representative on
>> the Policy Committee; 2.	Delegate members to GNSO
>> working groups and
>> task forces; 3.	Issue statements on GNSO Policy
>> Development Processes
>> which are included in the
>> official NCSG response, but marked as constituency positions,
>> and not
>> necessarily the position of NCSG as a whole.
>>
>> -------------
>>
>> I do not know how this possibly can be characterized as
>> opposition to
>> the concept of a constituency.
>>
>> The principal difference with the charter you've imposed on us, as
>> we've explained time and again, is that we do not think it
>> wise to set
>> up constituencies as purely self-regarding silos that compete
>> against
>> each other for council seats, recognition and influence, and thereby
>> spend their time fighting and jockeying for position rather than
>> working together to advance noncommercial public interest
>> perspectives
>> in ICANN.  We think it is better for constituencies to
>> collaborate in
>> an integrated community.  Hence, we did not think it sensible
>> to hard
>> wire council seats (which would get absurd if the number of
>> constituencies exceeds six, as it hopefully will...we're glad you
>> agreed on this), and instead suggested that GNSO Council
>> Representatives be elected directly by all NCSG members in an annual
>> SG-wide vote.  To secure a council seat, a constituency on consumer
>> protection, registrants, privacy, gender, freedom of speech or
>> whatever else would simply have to be a vibrant group that puts
>> forward a candidate and vision that others find persuasive.  Given
>> that noncommercial people tend to share certain broad values and
>> priorities, I'm hard pressed to imagine that, for example, a solid
>> consumer constituency that actually comprises noncommercial
>> actors and
>> advocates for the public interest would have a hard time getting
>> support from people who care about privacy, speech, and so on.  So
>> it'd be a matter of persuading colleagues rather than having a
>> birthright fiefdom within which one does one's own thing and ignores
>> everyone else.
>>
>> We understand that questions have been raised about voting
>> formula and
>> whether it might make sense to put in place mechanisms to
>> prevent the
>> 'capture' of the council, and we've said we're open to viable
>> suggestions on that score.  Have yet to hear one. One might add that
>> if NCUC's proposed charter had been approved and constituency
>> formation were made as easy as we'd hoped, the NCUC itself
>> would have
>> ceased to exist, and those of our current 80 organizational and 87
>> individual members who wanted to off and form constituencies on
>> privacy, gender, or whatever else would have done so.  So there'd be
>> no NCUC to be capturing anything in the first place.  In contrast,
>> under the SIC charter, NCUC would be nuts to disband, inter alia
>> because it'd leave our members homeless, especially the
>> individuals.
>> Hard to see how that would be good for ICANN.
>>
>>> voting power, against the obvious concerns of who wants to build new
>>> constituencies, is the leit-motiv that has guided the whole
>> process
>>> of the
>>> review: move the focus away from the vote, which is by its nature
>>> divisive,
>>> onto the consensus building process.
>>> New constituencies will not have the right to appoint their "own"
>>> councillors, but will have the right to participate in WGs
>> and other
>>> policy
>>> making processes and bodies, will have support from ICANN staff and
>>> resources to self-organize, will be able to participate
>> with their own
>>> representatives in the Executive Committee of the NCSG, etc.
>>> In simple words, what we have tried to do is to create a balance and
>>> hopefully a possible way to coexist and, in time, to collaborate,
>>> for all
>>> the different components of the wide and diverse non-commercial
>>> internet
>>> community. Somebody on this list has spoken about
>> "reconsideration"
>>> of the
>>> Board's decision. This is surely possible. But what I would
>> propose
>>> is to
>>> try to discuss and understand if what the SIC has proposed
>> can work in
>>> practice, although it is not going to be perfect for anybody, before
>>> shooting it down and start all over again. This discussion
>> is for me
>>> one of
>>> the main priorities, if not the first priority altogether,
>> in Seoul,
>>> which
>>> as you all know will mark the end of my term as Director.
>>>
>>> The ALAC and the NCUC are two big parts of this picture, the only
>>> organized
>>> bodies in ICANN so far (for non-commercial users), I personally
>>> think that
>>> the first step can be to have a joint discussion in Seoul. Bill's
>>> proposal
>>> of meeting in an event that is not only work, but also
>> social, goes
>>> in this
>>> sense, methinks.
>>
>> Here we agree.  And I think finding common ground will be a
>> lot easier
>> if ALAC colleagues are not laboring under the false impression that
>> NCUC somehow wants to prevent them or other from forming
>> constituencies, hence the above.  Our main concern has been that we
>> first have an opportunity to work out a final, non-divisive charter
>> with the board, after which constituency launches could begin in
>> earnest.  In contrast, launching constituencies under the SIC
>> charter
>> would likely lock us into that framework and engender the very
>> fragmentation the meeting is intended to help overcome.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bill
>

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
   Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************