Re: [council] First thoughts on acting on BR 2008-12-11 02

["Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza" <caffsouza@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is just to support the terms of Bill´s last email and to reinforce that
the Board´s resolution has been cause for great concern and debate over the
last days. We expect that the rationale for such resolution (and the
disregard of the NCSG proposal already presented and discussed during the
Cairo meeting) comes to light as the importance and urgency of such issue
require.

I would also like to support the contents of Robin´s and Milton´s messages
attached to the previous email. They reflect well our concerns on this
subject-matter.

Best,
Carlos

2009/1/17 William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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
> ***********************************************************
>