[EURO-Discuss] Comment on Stakeholder Charters by Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2007-2009

Fri Jul 24 13:32:52 CDT 2009

At 7:50 PM +0200 7/24/09, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>Dear Bill:
>
>You will find all statements of the ALAC on this 
>subject (as well as all other matters where 
>statements have been made) on 
>http://www.atlarge.icann.org under 
>correspondence.
>

Nick, thanks.

I notice ALAC's most recent consensus statement 
on the topic is not in the correspondence list, 
please see 
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html>

I am concerned that the staff recommendation for 
the new NCSG charter is very similar to that 
proposed by Cheryl Preston and explicitly 
rejected by ALAC this 16 April 2009 contribution.

And note the ALAC statement of 14 August 2008, says, among other things:

" We also may differ from some of the current 
constituencies on how the GNSO should evolve 
after the new structure is implemented. As noted 
in the BGC report, the process for forming new 
constituencies has been in the By-Laws as long as 
the GNSO has existed. But it has never happened, 
presumably due to the (real or perceived) heavy 
burden of ³self-forming² and then ongoing 
management. Within the new structure, it may be 
even more difficult, due to a potential for the 
existing constituencies to believe that they can 
represent all viewpoints, thus eliminating the 
need for new constituencies." And goes on to make 
comments about how constituencies can be created 
without the barriers we've seen in the past. 
However, the staff recommendation for the new 
NCSG charter seems to provide more hurdles, not 
less.  The top down model didn't work, ALAC 
statement of a year ago recognizes this and seems 
to reject it.  The NCUC proposal is of course 
much more user-friendly, allows for the easy 
creation of constituencies that have equal rights 
in policy development.

So answering Bill's question, there has been no 
discussion of the NCSG charter since our agreed 
statement of 16 April this year.  Speaking for 
myself, I do not support the top-down NCSG 
charter proposal as presented by staff.  Am very 
concerned it will exclude individuals, forming 
new constituencies will be difficult, and is 
obviously an unfair burden on non-commercial 
users compared to the charter proposed for the 
commercial users house: these double standards 
are very worrying.

Sorry for the quick note. Late here, and I've 
been travelling and currently enjoying a nice 
dose of jet lag!

Best,

Adam

>William Drake wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>As a member of both the NCUC and Euralo/ALAC 
>>environments, I must say I was a little puzzled 
>>by this statement in the public comment period 
>>on the NCSG charter. 
>>http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00067.html
>>
>>The statement begins by noting that "This is 
>>not a formal or ratified statement or comment 
>>per se but rather a synopsis of those 
>>previously provided in various fora to date" 
>>(lots of writing like that, a bit hard to read, 
>>but whatever...).  I don't recall the previous 
>>discussions on Euralo or other ALAC-related 
>>lists that are being synopsized in which people 
>>endorsed a narrowly constituency-based model 
>>for the NCSG, which will result in 
>>fragmentation, politicization, and 
>>ineffectiveness.  To the contrary, my 
>>recollection, which is refreshed by Cheryl's 
>>comment, is that ALAC people actually rejected 
>>the CP80 proposal, which embodied such a model. 
>>And yet the new SIC/staff version embodies 
>>pretty much the same model, and now it is 
>>apparently ok and to be supported!
>>
>>I'm sure the SIC/staff will be pleased to have 
>>at least one reliable expression of support for 
>>the dysfunctional model that has been rejected 
>>by hundreds of individuals and organizations 
>>over two public comment periods. 
>>http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters 
>>and 
>>http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters. 
>>And of course, everyone's entitled to their own 
>>opinion and bits of self-aggrandizing 
>>historical revisionism.  What I'm unable to 
>>figure out is whether that opinion is widely 
>>shared among the people whose views purportedly 
>>are being synopsized, and when and where this 
>>support was expressed.  Did I just miss the 
>>memo?  Can anyone explain?
>>
>>Would be really interested to hear from Adam, 
>>Patrick, Sebastian and others who are more well 
>>attuned to the internal dynamics of ALAC 
>>discourse and decision making....
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>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
>>***********************************************************
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>EURO-Discuss mailing list
>>EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>>Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>
>--
>
>--
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>Nick Ashton-Hart
>
>Director for At-Large
>
>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83
>
>USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637
>
>Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
>
>Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468
>
>email: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
>
>Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: 
>nashtonhart at mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart
>
>Online Bio:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
>
>_______________________________________________
>EURO-Discuss mailing list
>EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org