Alan, I don't think you and I are going to agree
on the relative merits of the SIC/Staff and NCUC
proposed charters, and as we move forward I don't
think the NCUC draft matters much, at least not
at the moment.

I think the NCUC proposal superior, but that's a
bit irrelevant as there's really only one draft
charter put before us and that's from SIC, online

and copy attached.

There's been a lot of comment critical of the
SIC, and given that I expect (hope) discussion
will continue towards/in Seoul (and perhaps then
the NCUC draft will come back into play.) But
for now I think we would do well to start again
and decide what it is we want from the
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, where the SIC
draft meets those needs and where it fails.

ALAC's opinion on this will be valued, it's seen
I think as an issue we should have competency on.
We should make an effort to read the proposal and
understand what's at issue.

Some things I want from the eventual working NCSG:

That the barriers to participation are low, new
actors can join easily with minimum of obstacles
and delay.
Processes/structures follow the bottom-up
stakeholder driven model, are consistent and
transparent.
Interested individual Internet users to have a
voice in policy development and selection of GNSO
council representatives.

I agree with you about the need to protect against capture.

Thanks,

Adam

At 7:55 PM -0400 7/30/09, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>Adam, on the Euro-Discuss list, you had the
>following quote, and I think (but am not sure)
>that it is the one that you quoted during the
>ALAC meeting this week.
>
>
>" 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.
>
>By summarizing the next part in one sentence
>eliminates some of the key issues. It says:
>So expecting a group to self-form and become a
>new GNSO constituency is expecting a lot. If it
>is to happen at all, there are several things
>that must facilitate this:
>. ICANN (and the stakeholder groups) will have
>to make it as easy as possible to create and
>operate new constituencies. The requirements
>they must meet must be reasonable and applied
>with consistency.
>. These new entities must feel comfortable that
>they will be able to participate in the Policy
>Development Process as discretely identifiable
>bodies, at a level comparable to (and not
>subservient to) the long-established players (of
>course factoring in size). Without that
>guarantee, there is little reason for them to
>make the considerable effort needed to enter
>into GNSO processes.
>. The new addition level of hierarchy moving
>from GNSO->¨Constituency to GNSO->¨Stakeholder
>Group¨Constituency (or as per the consensus
>proposal GNSO->¨House->¨Stakeholder
>Group->¨Constituency) must be managed to
>minimize the need for additional complexity and
>additional volunteer effort. Thin layers will
>be, in our opinion, absolutely mandatory.
>If the above can be accomplished within the new
>Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, the
>non-commercial rebirth envisioned in section 5.3
>of the BGC report may actually happen.
>
>The second bullet is crucial. In my mind (and I
>don't expect to alter your views or those of the
>NCUC folks who drafted it), the NCUC-proposed
>NCSG charter does not come close to satisfying
>the second bullet. I believe that charter sets
>too high a threshold to getting the views of a
>new constituency to be voiced on Council. The
>SIC-proposed charter addresses this by allowing
>the Board to select some Councillors until such
>time as the new players in the NCSG can
>participate in the drafting of the longer-term
>rules for selecting councillors. That is
>absolutely key to attracting those new people
>into the game. By having the flat model that was
>proposed by the NCUC, you have the need to a
>small new constituency (or interest group) to
>convince others that their ideas merit support,
>a potentially difficult thing to do it those
>ideas do not support the established thinking
>(and I am reminded on the radically differing
>views on Whois by those who advocate privacy and
>those who are looking at consumer protection
>issues).
>
>The SIC proposal also removed the possibility of
>capture, and issue that did not arise until the
>early NCSG charter drafts (and one that is
>present in the CyberSecurity draft as well). I
>honestly don't know if that issue was raised in
>a formal ALAC statement (I haven't had the
>chance to check), but it was continually raised
>in public and private discussions with the NCUC.
>
>In the end, once everyone is at the table, the
>final NCSG charter may look very similar to the
>NCUC proposal, and if some that is fine. As long
>as any new constituencies have had a chance to
>participate in the discussion.
>
>Alan _______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
>ALAC@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