No subject

21 August 2009
________________________________________________________________

Myth 1
“Civil Society won’t participate in ICANN under NCUC’s charter
proposal.”
False. ICANN staffers and others claim that civil society is
discouraged from engaging at ICANN because NCUC’s charter proposal
does not guarantee GNSO Council seats to constituencies. The facts
show this claim could not be further from the truth. NCUC’s membership
includes 152 noncommercial organizations and individuals from 52
countries. Since 2008 NCUC’s membership has increased by more 240% –
largely in direct response to civil society’s support for the NCUC
charter. Not a single noncommercial organization commented in the
public comment forum that hard-wiring council seats to constituencies
will induce their participation in ICANN. None of the noncommercial
organizations that commented on the NCSG Charter said they would
participate in ICANN only if NCSG's Charter secured the constituencies
a guaranteed seat on the GNSO.

Myth 2
“More civil society groups will get involved if the Board intervenes.”
A complete illusion. Board imposition of its own charter and its
refusal to listen to civil society groups will be interpreted as
rejection of the many groups that commented and as discrimination
against civil society participation. ICANN’s reputation among
noncommercial groups will be irreparably damaged unless this action is
reversed or a compromise is found. Even if we were to accept these
actions and try to work with them, the total impact of the staff/SIC
NCSG charter will be to handicap noncommercial groups and make them
less likely to participate. The appointment of representatives by the
Board disenfranchises noncommercial groups and individuals. The
constituency-based SIC structure requires too much organizational
overhead for most noncommercial organizations to sustain; it also pits
groups against each other in political competition for votes and
members. Most noncommercial organizations will not enter the ICANN
GNSO under those conditions.

Myth 3
"The outpouring of civil society opposition can be dismissed as the
product of a 'letter writing campaign.'"
An outrageous claim. Overwhelming civil society opposition to the SIC
charter emerged not once, but twice. In addition, there is the massive
growth in NCUC membership stimulated by the broader community’s
opposition to the staff and Board actions. Attempts to minimize the
degree to which civil society has been undermined by these
developments are simply not going to work, and reveal a shocking
degree of insularity and arrogance. ICANN is required to have public
comment periods because it is supposed to listen to and be responsive
to public opinion. Public opinion results from networks of
communication and public dialogue on controversial issues, including
organized calls to action. No policy or bylaw gives ICANN staff the
authority to decide that it can discount or ignore nearly all of the
groups who have taken an interest in the GNSO reforms, simply because
they have taken a position critical of the staff’s. ICANN's attempt to
discount critical comments by labeling them a "letter writing
campaign" undermines future participation and confidence in ICANN
public processes.

Myth 4
"Civil society is divided on the NCSG charter issue."
Wrong. There has never been such an overwhelmingly lopsided public
comment period in ICANN’s history. While ICANN’s staff is telling the
Board that civil society is divided, the clear, documented consensus
among civil society groups has been against the ICANN drafted NCSG
charter and in favor of the NCUC one. Board members who rely only on
staff-provided information may believe civil society is divided, but
Board members who have actually read the public comments can see the
solidarity of civil society against what ICANN is trying to impose on
them.

Myth 5
"Existing civil society groups are not representative or diverse
enough."
Untrue by any reasonable standard. The current civil society grouping,
the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC), now has 152 members
including 75 noncommercial organizations and 77 individuals in 52
countries. This is an increase of more than 240% since the parity
principle was established. Noncommercial participation in ICANN is now
more diverse than any other constituency, so it is completely unfair
to level this charge at NCUC without applying it to others. Even back
in 2006, an independent report by the London School of Economics
showed that NCUC was the most diverse geographically, had the largest
number of different people serving on the GNSO Council over time, and
the highest turn-over in council representatives of any of the 6
constituencies. In contrast, the commercial users’ constituency has
recycled the same 5 people on the Council for a decade and upon the
GNSO “reform”, the first 3 of 6 GNSO Councilors from the Commercial
Stakeholder Group will represent the United States.

Myth 6
"ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society
drafted charter."
False. An ALAC leader said that she prefers the staff drafted charter.
ICANN staff ran away with this comment and falsely told the ICANN
Board of Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted charter. In
fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC said that some
members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that “the de-linking
of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right
direction.”

Myth 7
"The NCUC charter would give the same small group 6 votes instead of
3."
False. For the past 8 months, NCUC has stated that it will dissolve
when the NCSG is formed. It does not make sense to have a
"Noncommercial Users Constituency" and a "Noncommercial Stakeholders
Group,” as they are synonymous terms. Thus, NCUC leaders would not be
in control of a new NCSG – a completely new leadership would be
elected. Under the NCUC charter proposal, all noncommercial groups and
individuals would vote on Council seats, not just former NCUC members.
Strict geographic diversity requirements would mean that candidates
from throughout the world would have to be selected even if they could
not get a majority of total votes.

Myth 8
"NCUC will not share council seats with other noncommercial
constituencies."
Wrong. NCUC’s proposed charter was designed to allow dozens of new
noncommercial constituencies to form at will and to advance their own
candidates for Council seats. Given the diversity and breadth of
NCUC's membership, many different constituencies with competing
agendas are likely to form. The organic, bottom-up self-forming
approach to constituency formation is much better than the board/staff
approach – and more consistent with the BGC recommendations. The SIC
charter makes constituency formation very top-heavy and difficult, and
gives the staff and Board arbitrary power to decide how
“representative” or “significant” new participants are. Because it
ties constituencies to Council seats, every new constituency
instigates power struggles over the allocation of Council seats.

Myth 9
"The NCUC wants to take away the Board's right to approve
constituencies."
False. People who said this have obviously not read the NCUC-proposed
charter. NCUC’s proposal let the board approve or disapprove of new
constituencies formed under its proposed charter. Our proposal simply
offered to apply some simple, objective criteria (e.g., number of
applicants) to new constituency groupings and then make a
recommendation to the Board. The idea was to reduce the burden of
forming a new constituency for both the applicants and the Board.
NCUC’s proposal made it easy to form new constituencies, unlike the
SIC charter, which makes it difficult to form new constituencies.

Myth 10
“The purpose of a constituency is to have your very own GNSO Council
Seat.”
False. Some claim GNSO Council seats must be hard-wired to specific
constituencies because a constituency is meaningless without a
guaranteed GNSO Council representative. However this interpretation
fails to understand the role of constituencies in the new GNSO, which
is to give a voice and a means of participation in the policy
development process -- not a guaranteed councilor who has little
incentive to reach beyond her constituency and find consensus with
other constituencies. Two of the other three stakeholder groups
(Registries and Registrars) adopted NCUC’s charter approach of
decoupling GNSO Council seats to constituencies, but NCUC has been
prevented from electing its councilors on a SG-wide basis.

_______________________________________________________________________________

JOIN NCUC
All noncommercial organizations and individuals are invited to join
NCUC and participate in policy development in ICANN’s GNSO. Bring your
experience and your perspective to Internet policy discussions and
help protect noncommercial users of the Internet by participating at
ICANN via the NCUC. Join today:
http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/main/authorization/signUp?

GLOSSARY OF ICANN ACRONYMS

ALAC - At-Large Advisory Committee

ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for
considering and providing advice on the activities of the ICANN, as
they relate to the interests of individual Internet users (the
"At-Large" community).

gTLD - Generic Top Level Domain

Most TLDs with three or more characters are referred to as "generic"
TLDs, or "gTLDs". They can be subdivided into two types, "sponsored"
TLDs (sTLDs) and "unsponsored TLDs (uTLDs), as described in more
detail below.

In the 1980s, seven gTLDs (.com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and
.org) were created. Domain names may be registered in three of these
(.com, .net, and .org) without restriction; the other four have
limited purposes. Over the next twelve years, various discussions
occurred concerning additional gTLDs, leading to the selection in
November 2000 of seven new TLDs for introduction. These were
introduced in 2001 and 2002. Four of the new TLDs (.biz, .info, .name,
and .pro) are unsponsored. The other three new TLDs (.aero, .coop, and
.museum) are sponsored.

GNSO - Generic Names Supporting Organization

The GNSO is responsible for developing policy recommendations to the
ICANN Board that relate to generic top-level domains (gTLDs).

The GNSO is the body of 6 constituencies, as follows: the Commercial
and Business constituency, the gTLD Registry constituency, the ISP
constituency, the non-commercial constituency, the registrar's
constituency, and the IP constituency.

However, the GNSO is in the process of restructuring away from a
framework of 6 constituencies to 4 stakeholder groups: Commercial,
Noncommercial, Registrar, Registry. The Noncommercial and Commercial
Stakeholder Groups together make up the “Non-contracting Parties
House” in the new bi-cameral GNSO; and the Registrar and Registry
Stakeholder Groups will together comprise the “Contracting Parties
House” in the new GNSO structure (beginning Oct. 2009).

ICANN - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an
internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has
responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation,
protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code
(ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server
system management functions

NCUC - Noncommercial Users Constituency

The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for
noncommercial organizations and individuals in the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Generic Names
Supporting Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN policy
making and Board selection, it develops and supports positions that
protect noncommercial communication and activity on the Internet. NCUC
works to promote the public interest in ICANN policy and is the only
noncommercial constituency in ICANN’s GSNO (there are 5 commercial
constituencies). The NCUC is open to noncommercial organizations and
individuals involved in education, community networking, public policy
advocacy, development, promotion of the arts, digital rights,
children's welfare, religion, consumer protection, scientific
research, human rights and many other areas. NCUC maintains a website
at http://ncdnhc.org.

NCSG - Noncommercial Stakeholders Group

The GNSO is in the process of being restructured from “6
constituencies” to “4 stakeholder groups”, including a Noncommercial
Stakeholders Group (NCSG) into which all noncommercial organizations
and individuals will belong for policy development purposes, including
members of the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC). The NCSG and
the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) will together comprise the
“Non-contracting Parties House” in the new bicameral GNSO structure
beginning October 2009.

LINKS TO BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

NCUC Letter to ICANN Board and CEO on NCSG Charter Controversy:
http://bit.ly/BiOg8

Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC):
http://ncdnhc.org

NCUC submitted NCSG charter proposal:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-petition-charter.pdf

Robin Gross on “Is ICANN Accountable to the Public Interest?”:
http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCUC-ICANN-Injustices.html

ICANN GNSO Chair Avri Doria on “Why I Joined the NCUC”:
http://tiny.cc/EPDtx

Internet Governance Project: “4 ICANN Board members dissent in vote on
NCSG charter”:
http://tiny.cc/S5CjP

2006 London School of Economics Independent Report on GNSO:
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15sep06.htm