Comparison of the two proposed charters

[Debra Peck <debbypeck@xxxxxxxxx>]

*            *After careful consideration of both the NCUC and the CSC
proposed charter, I would like to weigh in with my support for the
stakeholder group charter submitted by CSC. I have reviewed both charters in
depth, including previous drafts of the current versions that have been
submitted, as well as the explanatory letters accompanying the drafts. In
addition, I have read through the ICANN materials outlining the goals for
the GNSO improvements (available at
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-oct08-en.htm and
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/).  It is vitally important to
consider these guidelines in analyzing the two charters and their effect on
both NCSG and GNSO operations.  The CSC proposed charter is far superior in
meeting these objectives.


            The CSC proposed charter has a simple organization composed of
constituencies and an Executive Committee formed by representatives of
constituencies to engage in what little administration is necessary at the
stakeholder group level.  The goal is to bring in new participants and
expand the range of representation in the GNSO.  With the constituency as
the primary unit of the NCSG, newcomers will have an opportunity to work at
the GNSO level. There has to be a way to invite new ideas and discussion
without the fear that that these discussions will be disposed of before they
can surface out of the NCSG. As is, the NCUC proposal sends the clear
message that any attempt at participation is futile unless you can gather a
majority of all non-commercial participants – by definition this excludes
minority voices from participation at the GNSO level.

The structure and voting provisions set forth in the NCUC proposed charter
miss the mark on ICANN guidelines for the GNSO restructure. Although the
NCUC charter has come a long way since initial drafts, it still maintains a
merely majoritarian structure that could be used, at this nascent stage, to
discourage newcomers with “disapproved” viewpoints from having meaningful
involvement.

Further deterring participation by new members is the new provision added to
the latest version of the NCUC proposed charter.  It prevents new members
from voting until they have been admitted to the unit for 90 days. The NCUC
claims that this was added in response to perceived threats of capture. This
seems disingenuous to me. This waiting period could effectively preclude any
new participants from voting until after the June ICANN meeting and after
the existing and new councilors reach the end of their two year terms.

The NCUC continually points to their provisions regarding working groups in
an effort to show that they have tolerated and accommodated minority voices
in their structure. However, anyone can form a group that works together to
submit a public proposal to ICANN or the GNSO.  A working group formed under
this charter has no special deference or significance requiring it to be
taken any more seriously than a public proposal.

Under the NCUC proposed charter, GNSO councilors from the non-commercial
stakeholder group are bound by policy positions that reach “broad consensus”
on the policy committee. This is (perhaps intentionally) vague. There is no
definition of what “broad” means, which is particularly alarming when the
councilors themselves are the majority on the policy committee.

The NCUC proposal permits individual representations from any three
organizations of any size OR any ten individuals to form a constituency and
put someone on the stakeholder group policy committee.  And since people can
be in three constituencies at the same time, any single group of three
organizations could create three full constituencies.  The NCUC proposed
structure creates its own artificial incentives to create constituencies,
and without any oversight other than counting to three and making sure no
“commercial” users have snuck in by disguise.

The NCUC’s policy committee is totally unworkable.  It will create either
overrepresentation or impossibly unwieldy administration, depending on the
number of constituencies (for a more detailed explanation and breakdown of
the numbers, see the CSC’s response to version 6 of the NCUC proposed
charter, available at
https://st.icann.org/ncsg-commons/index.cgi?ncsg_structure). The CSC
proposed charter provides a simple model that reduces administrative
overhead. The charter seeks to allocate Council seats evenly to any
constituency the Board sees fit to approve, and then extra seats, if any,
through a consensus model before resorting to a more administratively
involved voting system. This simplified model will allow to the NCSG to
focus on more important policy matters, rather than administrative details.

These are the main reasons that I favor the CSC proposed charter over the
NCUC proposal. (For more in depth discussion of the charter provisions,
please refer to the CSC’s response to version 6 of the NCUC proposed
charter, with which I concur, available at
https://st.icann.org/ncsg-commons/index.cgi?ncsg_structure.)



Debra Peck, J.D.