[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG collaboration with ALAC

[Collin Kurre]

Given the tagline “We Serve the Users”, I too have been surprised and confused by ALAC positions at times, perceiving them to be against the interests of large portions (if not the majority) of internet users. 

For that reason, I agree that a face-to-face meeting would be preferable to clear the air, identify joint interests, and lay the groundwork for further cooperation and, ideally, joint action on behalf of end-users. 

--
Collin Kurre
ARTICLE 19

> On Oct 3, 2018, at 10:07 AM, AMADU YUSIF <yamadu at UG.EDU.GH> wrote:
> 
> Arm, based on what your saying and your experience, I think its a right time to have a face-t-face meeting with ALAC to be able to trash out with the consistently conflicted issues. We all have agenda to protect internet.  
> 
> Yusif Amadu
> eLearning Unit
> University of Ghana Computing Systems
> University of Ghana
> Cell: +233244659245
> Skype:  kooissi
> 
> From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at ICANNPOLICY.NINJA>
> Sent: 02 October 2018 16:41:12
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCSG collaboration with ALAC
>  
> Hi,
> 
> At the risk of being wrong, I’ll go ahead and assume that scheduling issues are likely why these joint meetings have stopped. ICANN meetings have been a scheduling nightmare for a few years now.
> 
> I wasn’t involved in the JAS WG, but I first joined NCSG in 2010, and have been pretty involved in GNSO/gTLD policy development since 2012. I don’t think I can recollect a single time I have been able to collaborate with ALAC on their policy positions. In my experience, their desired policy outcomes have consistently conflicted with our own. They almost exclusively seem to favor IP rights and policies that favor LEAs over the interests of non-commercial name holders.
> 
> One area I have found it helpful to work with them is on process issues, so non-PDP GNSO WGs, like the GNSO Policy and Implementation WG. But certainly not policy-oriented WGs.
> 
> If there is a reason to meet with them, and collaborate, perhaps this can be done over a conference call(s)? I don’t believe we need to slice out a slot of ICANN meetings to hang out, but that’s just me. I also wouldn’t begrudge others for meeting with them to try to identify common grounds.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Oct 2, 2018, at 1:23 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Farzaneh,
>> 
>> thanks for the mention. to be accurate, the joint meetings predates my term as far as I recall. In fact we got things done there, for example, the  CCWG on Internet Governance was the result of a joint effort between ALAC and NCSG in Buenos Aires meeting in 2013 and then evolved to full cross-community working group when chartered by GNSO, ALAC, and ccNSO. We also had joint efforts: as NCSG pushed for new gTLD applicant support in GNSO (And there was a lot of resistance), we got ALAC support and had the joint WG between GNSO and ALAC known as JAS WG. I think there were also some joint statements before.
>> 
>> while I cannot explain why we didn't have joint meetings lately as it may be the result of follow-up and/or scheduling issues, I see the invitation for Barcelona meeting as a good thing and we can follow-up. As you indicated, I think we have several areas of agreements on several topics, while not for a few others and that is normal. 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> Le mar. 2 oct. 2018 à 07:52, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> a écrit :
>> Wolfgang brought up the collaboration of NCSG and ALAC and its improvement on a thread on NCUC mailing list, I thought I bring it up here and give it some thoughts. 
>> 
>> ALAC and NCSG have long been working with one another. This relation existed since Rafik was the chair of NCSG and he had maintained a connection with ALAC and worked with Olivier. (Rafik can add more details but this is what I heard was happening during Rafik time). When I was the chair of NCUC we started our joint NCUC/At Large outreach, that tradition is still in place until now. We also did an NCSG/ALAC outreach during the policy forum in Panama.
>> 
>> No doubt there is some more work to be done. We have some convergences but we also have some commonalities. NCSG  invited them to NCSG open session in Barcelona which they kindly accepted and we will have a 30-minute discussion with them. 
>> 
>> 
>> I think what NCSG needs to do instead of thinking about who to just collaborate with, is what goals we are pursuing and then see where we can forge connections and relations. We diverge on some issues with ALAC and on some issues we have commonalities. We clarify these and see if we can support each other's work when we have commonalities.
>> 
>> Some might think that because we criticize ALAC's governance or are not in favor of excessively funding ALAC efforts, we are against them. We are not against ALAC. We provide our opinion and feedback when asked (for example in case of the recent review or the budget). We initiate collaboration when there are commonalities and we do events with them. We should also remember that ALAC does not have solely a civil society position but an end user position which includes businesses etc. So we don't always hold hands. 
>> 
>> 
>> Best 
>> 
>> Farzaneh 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss <https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20181003/98b5ed59/attachment.htm>