<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] First thoughts on acting on BR 2008-12-11 02
- To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] First thoughts on acting on BR 2008-12-11 02
- From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:08:43 +0100
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,
On Jan 13, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Board resoluion 2008-12-11-02
"that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At-
Large community and representatives of potential new "non-
commercial" constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for
the composition and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial
Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the ALAC and its
supporting structures, yet ensures that the gTLD interests of
individual Internet users"
[snip]
Note: One possible objection is that this discussion is relevant
only to the NCSG and not to the rest of the GNSO community and thus
there is no role for the rest of the GNSO community or for the GNSO
council in this process. I can certainly see the logic of his
view and accept it if it is the predominant view in the council. I
do, however, feel obliged to make sure we have responded to the
Board motion, and hence the proposal and the discussion.
As Avri's note anticipated, this board resolution and the related
discussions have been a source of a great concern within NCUC (and a
distraction from substantive GNSO work). We would appreciate help
understanding how the resolution was formulated (including the lack of
mention of the NCUC proposal) and accepted, as well as the origins and
thinking behind the consequent proposals for a joint group of GNSO and
ALAC representatives, etc.
In the meanwhile, below I am passing along two related items: a letter
from NCUC chair Robin Gross to the counsel; and an email from Milton
to Denise replying to her 15 January message on the development of
stakeholder groups.
Thanks for your consideration,
Bill
----------------------
Dear GNSO Councilors:
It is completely unacceptable for the structure of the new NCSG to be
defined and shaped by commercial users and contracting parties.
Noncommercial stakeholders can and will define their own structure
suitable to themselves and not be manipulated by other stakeholder
groups who might seek to undermine its effectiveness. It is naïve and
disingenuous to pretend that the different SGs don't have competing
and often conflicting interests.
We note that no one has invited NCUC or ALAC to participate in
defining a new structure for the Commercial SG, or the Registrar and
Registry SGs. This kind of discrimination among SGs will discourage
additional noncommercial entities from participating in ICANN's GNSO.
Please note that NCUC has already proposed a structure for the NCSG
that has the overwhelming support of the noncommercial stakeholders
currently active in ICANN. We have conveyed it to At Large, discussed
its principles in public meetings in Cairo, and are in conversations
with staff about it now. While we welcome efforts to amend it from
new constituency proponents and relevant members of At Large, that
proposal will serve as the basis for any NCSG proposals that go to the
Board.
We have no objection in principle to working with At large members and
RALOs in this process, and as noted before we have already tried to
include them in our ongoing process. But we also note that individual
or organizational At Large members may also be commercial users and
thus ineligible to join a future noncommercial SG, and thus have no
legitimate role to play in the definition of our structure.
The Board Governance Committee has made it clear on numerous occasions
that Stakeholder Groups themselves should play a leading role in
defining their structure. Explicit statements to that effect have been
made by Roberto Gaetano, former Board members and BGC member Susan
Crawford, and Harald Alvestrand. This is, quite obviously, the right
approach.
Best,
Robin Gross
Chair of Non-Commercial Users Constituency
---------
Begin forwarded message:
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
Date: January 16, 2009 11:39:54 PM GMT+01:00
To: NCUC-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [liaison6c] Development of Stakeholder Groups
Reply-To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
Denise:
It is good to see ICANN staff becoming more flexible about the
formation of the new Stakeholder Groups.
However, you still are deviating rather significantly from the Board
Governance Committee’s reform principles.
The spirit of the BGC reforms was to encourage consensus policy
making, balanced representation, and a move away from the gridlock
that has beset the GNSO for years.
Unfortunately the staff’s approach to the reform process is having
the opposite effect: it is encouraging political infighting and
fragmentation rather than consensus.
Right now the staff is actively encouraging the formation of new
constituencies. Your intent is probably to encourage new
participation, but in fact that is not happening. No new
organizations or participants have surfaced in this process: ALL of
the new constituency proponents are simply existing members of GNSO
constituencies or long time members of At Large RALOs. Creating new
constituencies IS NOT the same thing as bringing in new participants.
The real effect of your actions is simply to set in motion a willy-
nilly fragmentation of stakeholder groups and a rather nasty kind of
political competition. Each of these constituencies is convinced
that if they break away from other groups and form their “own”
constituency they have more exclusive power and will be guaranteed
seats on the GNSO council. And since the number of seats on the
Council is fixed, the attempt to form new constituencies is a zero
sum game, in which one group’s recognition as a constituency
inherently diminishes the number of seats that can be held by other
constituencies. This creates an unhealthy, uncooperative
environment. It fosters a war of all against all. The Board will be
inundated with lobbying as these groups seek recognition for
themselves and heap criticism on other proposed constituencies as
being “unrepresentative” or “unfair.”
Bertrand and other advocates of consensus-based multistakeholderism
would be shocked if they knew what was really happening.
BGC members have repeatedly told me and other members of the GNSO
that the Stakeholders should develop and propose _their own_
structures. Shockingly, the Board has approved (BR 12 December
2008) without any debate or public comment on its implications, a
proposal to have the entire GNSO and At Large define the structure
of the new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group. This means that
commercial stakeholder groups and supplier groups will get to
dictate how our SG is organized. But no one has invited NCUC to
participate in defining a new structure for the Commercial SG, or
the Registrar and Registry SGs. This kind of discrimination among
SGs is unacceptable. It exemplifies the political war that you are
creating. Such pressure and discrimination will only discourage
existing noncommercial entities from participating in ICANN's GNSO.
Contrary to your claim, your approach does increase layers of
bureaucracy. All of these constituencies will have their own
organizational structure, their own membership eligibility criteria,
their own email lists, etc., etc. With separate lists, no member of
one constituency will know what is going on in the other, unless
they join ,many new lists – the last thing we need. Then the leaders
of all these constituencies will have to engage in time-consuming,
highly political negotiations with the leaders of other
constituencies to allocate Council seats and agree on policies. This
two-layered structure is a disaster, it creates the kind of
overwhelming organizational overhead that kills participation by
newcomers. For newcomers to ICANN, the organizational complexity is
already daunting. You cannot expect to increase participation by
doing this.
The only solution to these problems is to break out of the
constituency model altogether.
NCUC has thought carefully about the problem of Stakeholder Group
structure and has prepared a proposal that solves these problems.
Although every Board member we have talked to has supported our
approach, certain members of the staff have greeted it with
hostility. We are puzzled by this. Nevertheless, we are convinced it
is the right approach and are willing to take our case to the Board,
to the GAC, and to the public. In any fair comparison, we have no
doubt about which proposal will look better to those people who
really want to make bottom up work.
--Milton Mueller, member, Noncommercial Users Constituency
From: owner-liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
] On Behalf Of Denise Michel
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 8:39 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; liaison6c; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Alan
Greenberg; Janis Karklins; Bertrand de La Chapelle
Cc: Staff GNSO Implementation Planning Team; Nick Ashton-Hart; Donna
Austin
Subject: [liaison6c] Development of Stakeholder Groups
Dear Community Members:
Staff would like to share another draft Stakeholder Group Petition/
Charter Template (attached) to support and inform discussions on
this matter. This compliments the draft template provided in
October 2008.
Recognizing that we are all operating in uncharted territory, our
collective thinking continues to evolve concerning Stakeholder
Groups and how they might be optimally constructed, especially in
the formative stages of the GNSO Improvements implementation.
After considering some initial ideas and models, we found ourselves
gravitating toward a less encumbered structure. The result is the
attached template that we are circulating to the GNSO and broader
community in hopes that it will be useful as discussions on forming
four Stakeholder Groups move forward.
Underscoring our latest thinking is the following quotation from the
BGC Report on GNSO Improvements, adopted by the Board, which states
that (page 33), "The stakeholder groups may function only as a
'caucus,' bringing together like-minded stakeholders to elect
representatives to the Council who can represent them. This
structure would be fluid enough to accommodate new constituencies or
the formation of new interest groups. It will be important for the
implementation team to consider how to implement this flexibility
within the overall stakeholder structure set forth in these
recommendations. Our goal is definitely not to create a new layer
of bureaucracy (emphasis added), as we heard concerns about at the
San Juan Meeting."
This revised draft template emphasizes the constituency's continued
preeminence within the GNSO and, at the same time, establishes a
Stakeholder Group organization comprising minimal administrative and
operational essentials until such time as our experiences may
suggest a more elaborate design. In the bullets below, we have
annotated where our first draft template was changed along with
rationale where appropriate.
This streamlined approach also may be easier to implement in the
June time frame (you'll recall that the Board needs to review and
approve SG plans before a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in
June 2009).
Staff stands ready to provide assistance and work with you in the
construction of the Stakeholder Group organizations and charters.
Please feel free to call upon us to discuss Stakeholder Group
creation or to help with other restructuring matters --policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx
.
Regards,
Denise Michel
ICANN Vice President
Policy Development
denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx
+1.310.578.8632
Notes on changes to Staff's first draft template
1) Section 2.0 -- Organization and Membership
a. Replaced sub-sections 2.2 and 2.3. Consistent with the
current Bylaws, new constituency petitions are sent to the Board
(also copied to the GNSO Council and publicly posted for comment)
for formal approval including final placement within a particular
Stakeholder Group. Until the Bylaws are amended, we propose that
these functions be stipulated within the SG charter and re-evaluated
at a future date.
b. Added sub-section 2.4 to differentiate and emphasize
constituency rights and responsibilities from those of the SG.
2) Section 3.0 -- Leadership
a. Consistent with the BGC guidance, we amended sub-section 3.1
to add the option to structure an informal leadership caucus (e.g.
of Constituency Chairs) vs. formally elected officers.
b. Original section 4.0 – Stakeholder Group Functions was
edited and absorbed into sub-section 3.3. The principal functions
of the SG remain substantially as they were originally conceived.
c. Sub-sections 3.4 and 3.5 were edited for additional clarity
and 3.6 was removed on the basis that, to further reduce SG
administrative tasks, membership lists should continue to be
maintained by constituencies until such time as the GNSO has a
master database containing GNSO participants (as recommended in the
BGC Report).
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
***********************************************************
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
***********************************************************
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|