Stakeholder Group Charters -- comments by Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
Hello, Section 4.2 of the proposed CSG charter effectively gives each existing constituency a veto over the creation of new ones: "4.2 Membership shall also be open to any additional constituency recognised by ICANN’s Board under its by-laws, provided that such constituency, as determined by the unanimous consent of the signatories to this charter, is representative of commercial user interests which for the purposes of definition are distinct from and exclude registry and prospective registry, registrar, re-seller or other domain name supplier interests." I believe that clause should be amended, as it's really up to the ICANN Board to decide. Existing constituencies should not be given a veto. The words "as determined by the unanimous consent of the signatories to this charter" should be removed. Also, section 1.3.3 regarding "behavioural expectations", contains the clauses "adhering to ICANN Bylaws/Policies; supporting the bottom-up consensus model;" which might cause a conflict of interest between members of constituencies, as they'd need to put ICANN's interests ahead of their own organizational interests. This would mean, for example, that they couldn't advocate certain positions to NTIA/DOC. That's fine for Board members, but not for constituency members. This topic was already beaten to death in the ALAC, see: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009q2/005507.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009q2/005513.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009q2/005516.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009q2/005518.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009q2/005526.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009q2/005528.html Thus, I'd suggest either that part be amended to ensure that members can continue to represent the interests of their own organizations above all without limitation and without censorship, or the words should simply be deleted. Lastly, I'd like to reiterate our past comments related to transparency: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-constituency-renewals/msg00000.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-constituency-renewals/msg00001.html To make things concrete, note that the ISP constituency's mailing list has not had a single post in the last since months (i.e. all of 2009!): http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/ Either the mailing list archive is broken, or the level of participation is questionable. Their website: http://www.ispcp.info/ contains no member list. Of course, their financials are not visible to the public either. The Intellectual Property Constituency maintains a website: http://www.ipconstituency.org/ however its list of members is incomplete: http://www.ipconstituency.org/membership.htm given that many participants in the IRT claimed to be members of the IP Constituency but are not listed on the website. The IP constituency maintains no public mailing nor are their financials visible to the public. Other constituencies also fail to meet all the standards discussed in my February comments. Those standards should be reflected in each of the stakeholder group charters to maximize transparency and accountability. Sincerely, George Kirikos President Leap of Faith financial Services Inc. http://www.leap.com/