[ NNSquad ] Re: Got $55K to spare for ICANN?

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>]

Seth,

unsure if this is still suitable for NNSquad - I'll let Lauren decide on 
that. :-)

On 17/01/2010 23:18, Seth Johnson wrote :
> Certainly good news!  I know that Kathy Kleiman and the
> non-commercial users constituency and many others have been very
> frustrated with ICANN's practices for many years.  Aside from
> finally appearing to take the free speech implications on the
> trademark issue seriously -- by going back and taking the GNSO and
> ALAC seriously -- what exactly has been worked out between NCUC,
> ALAC and others, in terms of representation of what might broadly
> be called the public interest in ICANN's decisionmaking?  How many
> votes does the public interest have now?  Does ALAC have one yet?
>
>    

It depends in what context you mention "votes". Further to the review 
process of "At Large", ALAC has now been awarded the ability of having 
one voting seat on the ICANN Board of Directors. The review team has 
suggested two seats, but one is a good first step.
In my humble opinion, the formation of the STI review team, as a 
multi-stakeholder group of people within GNSO and including ALAC (which, 
one needs to remember, is not part of the GNSO), and the ability of this 
review team to reach consensus is a testimony to the maturity that ICANN 
is now in the process of reaching. NCUC (now called NCSG - Non 
Commercial Stakeholders Group) and ALAC have had their differences in 
the past but both NCUC and ALAC came together to make enough noise in 
Sydney (July) for ICANN to start listening.

> ISOC-NY hosted an online meeting in October going over these same
> types of issues that I and the others had brought up at the IRT
> event, as many had brought up many times before:
>
> Civic Representation in ICANN: What Now? forum
>    
> > http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=886
> >      
> . . . at which Milton Mueller of the Non-Commercial Users
> Constituency, Beau Brendler, a consumer advocate, and Danny
> Younger of At-Large articulated their various views regarding the
> representational structure at ICANN.  Subsequent to this meeting,
> it was agreed they'd meet in Seoul, and that's the last I heard on
> the issue.  Do you know anything about what ensued?  It almost
> seemed as if real headway was imminent.
>    
Whilst that meeting was taking place, many people at NCUC and At Large 
were speaking to each other on a very regular basis. The GNSO met on the 
saturday before the Seoul meeting started. The rest is explained in the 
STI paper.

One more thing: NCUC and At Large organised a dinner together in a 
Korean restaurant. Spending time speaking to each other face to face was 
way more helpful than hiding behind our keyboards - and we all left our 
egos at home.

> The bogus conception of trademark that ICANN has been promulgating
> is a substantive point, but that doesn't address the influence of
> "moneyed interests" on ICANN.  If ICANN wants to do things that
> have policy implications, they have to show how they're operating
> in regard to assuring they serve the interests of all.
>
>    

This is the battle which we at At Large, are waging on a daily basis. 
There are signs that the message is starting to have an effect. One of 
the reasons, IMHO, is that the quality of input from At Large has 
improved greatly. I'll admit that "Moneyed interests" at ICANN had 
sorted their act out a lot faster than we have, probably because they're 
professionals paid to do their job in their constituency and they all 
have a common goal whilst we in the public are a very varied bunch, with 
varied abilities, varied languages, and few common goals. So we had to 
shape our own house before being listened to. But I really feel that 
this is coming together now.

Ultimately ICANN is an organisation undergoing constant change. Some 
days might feel like an uphill struggle when you try to push for 
policies which should be in the public's best interest and you have a 
flurry of lawyers who know their stuff a lot better than you do because 
you have a day job too, but their day job is arguing with you. But there 
are times when you find out that consensus in a multi-stakeholder 
organisation is actually achievable - and it feels great.

ICANN's not perfect. That's why it needs intelligent individuals to join 
NCSG and At Large to improve it.

Warm regards,

Olivier (speaking solely on my behalf)

ps. not even sure if I can put a shameless plug here, but here goes: I'm 
on the EURALO Board - so that's why I really urge people to join At 
Large or get their organisation to join as an At Large Structure (ALS). 
This year I'm also on ICANN's Nominating Committee, and I ask everyone 
to consider positions of responsibility at ICANN, if you want to have a 
hand at improving it. Check out: http://nomcom.icann.org/  There. I've 
done it. :-)