[PC-NCSG] Civil Society Roundtables
Robin Gross
robin
Mon Feb 18 22:04:59 EET 2013
I share the concerns that ICANN's civil society engagement/outreach
efforts seem to be:
a) PR for ICANN, and
b) attempts to manage civil society by encouraging as others have
said "the 'right' kind of civil society groups' at ICANN (i.e. those
who will not criticize ICANN and share *staff's* goals for the type
of NGO's to become engaged or to listen to (see (a) above).
All of ICANN's 'outreach/engagement' efforts are top-down, and we
hear about them in a press release after ICANN has made all
invitations and arrangements.
We need a strategy to encourage ICANN to start including non-
commercial users who have been thinking about these issues (many are
in NCSG) and have contacts with these new groups in their plans for
civil society outreach and engagement.
A formal (but friendly) letter to ICANN from NCSG is in order on this
issue in my view.
Thanks,
Robin
On Feb 18, 2013, at 11:18 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> Thanks for the udpate,
>>
>>
>>
>> I had a 30 minute phone call with Chris Mondini*. Still waiting
>> for the write up, which he was going to do for Fadi and send me.
>> So I had not yet gotten to writing anything up. But since you ask.
>>
>> maybe allowing comment to draft something online through etherpad?
>>
>> - 'doubling down on splintering'
>>
>> First things first, I brought up the fact that some of my co-
>> volunteers objected to the split between NGO and Academia that I
>> had proposed. He not only wanted to keep those separate, he
>> wanted to separate the discussion with NGOs into two groups:
>>
>> I see it as "divide and conquer strategy" and because what is
>> happening already in his visit to Asia and in japan in particular
>> (I think you already saw the message from Izumi in At-large list),
>> the meeting are seen as PR and communication more than real
>> engagement IMHO, but I will be glad to see my assumption
>> contradicted in the ground. I am also recalling the content of
>> blog post about LA meeting.
>
> It's just so refreshing to have the Vice President of Business
> Engagement in charge of defining civil society and which players
> merit what kinds of inclusion. So I guess "NGOs" means the paid
> staff of NGOs, not their members and fellow travelers, who might
> include (gasp) academics.
>>
>> for example, where are NC people at the MIG events planned in
>> dubai and adis abeba?
>> the other question why not meeting everybody like the registries-
>> registrars meeting in amsterdam?
>> also the idea of DNS industry summit , why not a DNS users summit
>> where they will all non-commercials without distinction.
>>
>>
>> - Those who concerned themselves with Internet Governance - mostly
>> smaller organizations
>> - Those who have developed methods by which they run gigantic
>> operations in the global public interest - the big organizations
>
> So the real interest is probably not "NGOs" generally, but rather
> the "right kind of NGOs" that some ICANN vets have said were
> supposed to have been the CS contingent all along?When oh when are
> Oxfam et al going to call and say domain names are their priority now?
>
>>
>> yes the PR toward those big organizations and that is why inviting
>> "leaders".
>>
>> - As for 'leaders.'
>>
>> I use the word because they use the word, I am sure you know my
>> innate disdain for the notion of Leaders, but I was wearing my
>> pragmatic attitude in this conversation.
>>
>> I know that you abhor that word and I don't see any reason to
>> encourage its usage. we should'nt support the CEO in bringing such
>> corporate culture to ICANN , that will be self-defeating.
>>
>>
>> These things are designed as discussions between Fadi and a few
>> other leaders. So while I think ICANN should be having lots of
>> conversations with lots of Non Commercials and other civil
>> society, in this case, I was presenting an argument for why his
>> roundtable series should extend to Non Commercial leaders. If we
>> want to present ideas for other events with other kinds of voices,
>> we should develop specific proposals.
>>
>> ok, I am happy to help, while I am not in favor of division.
>
> Ditto
>>
>> In this case, I am not trying to boil the ocean, just get
>> something opened up. So yes, I am "encouraging a kind of high
>> level event". My personal suggestion that started the discussions
>> was the simple proposition that he needed to do with Civil
>> Society, and NGOs especially, same kind of leadership roundtable
>> he is having with Business.
>>
>> yes for fairness, but he met will all registries and then
>> registrars, and probably with business but he dont divide them in
>> sub-categories.
>>
>> I would prefer to not turn this into another kind of campaign,
>> though I do support the idea of other types of campaign.
>> not a campaign but keep a certain pressure to avoid backward move.
>>
>>
>> - On individuals not institutions.
>>
>> His primary interest at this point seems to be meeting the heads
>> of other organizations, so that is what I am suggesting. Perhaps
>> if/when we get to academic, that can be expanded to other
>> prominent members of Civil society who are not academic.
>
> or NGO staff??
>>
>> back again to corporate culture and ignoring critics.
>>
>> Don't know. This particular round of discussions is not about
>> individuals - to be honest I don't know how one picks the 5-10
>> individuals he should invite to a roundtable. I think a meeting
>> with the some of the individual people who hate ICANN would be a
>> different sort of beast. and perhaps this is what NCSG should
>> work up a proposal on - something similar to what is done at ICANn
>> meeting for the business community should be done for the civil
>> society. It would be good to have an event like we had in Nairobi
>> at more meeting. Maybe we should be suggesting one for Durban.
>> But that is something different than this, and for now, I am
>> working on this. But if we develop a coherent proposal, I think
>> we should present it.
>>
>> OK for the last sentence.
>>
>> - When and Where
>>
>> Mondini wants to try and plan these meetings for times and places
>> where these leaders may already be.
>
> Maybe he could lurk around outside Security Council and Human
> Rights Council meetings with some 'join the new gTLD program'
> pamphlets...
>
>> He is worried about the ability to actually pull these leaders to
>> LA or other ICANN offices. He asked me to suggest possible
>> events. Obviously I know about Ig events and suggested a Geneva
>> consultation for IGF or Bali would be one of the best
>> opportunities for co-scheduling. I am looking into other
>> opportunities for the non-Ig NGO leaders. Suggestions Welcome.
>> We have not gotten down to specific invitees yet.
>>
>> - Topics
>>
>> As for the topics that would be subjected to his Venn analysis
>> (not at all a new term, though perhaps a new use - i am guessing
>> it is a Biz thing), the topics we discussed:
>>
>> 1. reputation analysis - but turned on its head. In the
>> roundtables with Fadi, this was the Ry & Rr reputations being
>> talked about. In terms of discussions with civil society
>> organizations and academic, it would be ICANN's reputation.
>>
>> well, ICANN reputation should be done through respect of
>> processes , respect of volunteers and bottom-up model :) it is
>> not PR exercise because outsiders have really little trust on
>> ICANN, we are the few believers and somehow trasher by ICANN itself.
>
> Oh the irony
>>
>> I think it is important that ICANN get a clear view of ICANN's
>> reputation especially among Civil society, I really do not think
>> they know. I think many think that what they do for ALAC is
>> enough to make civil society happy. I started my work on
>> disabusing them of this notion.
>
> Perhaps we could organize a close encounter at the IGF?
>>
>> indeed, we need to debunk such myths and avoid thinking that
>> "minimal service" is enough.
>>
>> 2. how to serve the public interest and yet meet large scale
>> operational requirements
>>
>> 3. multistakeholder participation - where civil society fits in
>> the various ongoing ICANN experiment and how their participation
>> can be facilitated
>>
>> Other topics I wanted to get in based on conversations with APC
>> where I volunteer, but did not yet, are the Internationalization
>> efforts and issue of institutional capture.
>>
>> I am also APC affiliate too, it will be great to have a debate
>> there too.
>
> We've been raising these in NCSG meetings with the board etc. for
> years and no traction. Something written would really help.
>>
>> That is about what comes to mind, I have not had my first coffee
>> yet, but wanted to get a quick note off. When I have a more
>> formal report of the meeting, I will share it.
>>
>> Note, I have not been suggesting this expansion of roundtables as
>> a representative of any group. It was my own idea to presume to
>> tell him what he ought to do. And it was my own tactical decision
>> to try and do it by semi-private email instead of public assault.
>> Sometimes I think public assault in the blogosphere etc is the way
>> to go; in this case, I decided to try to quiet way.
>>
>>
>> that is nuke to be used wisely and carefully :)
>
> Si
>>
>>
>>
>> * He is Vice President, Business Engagement, ICANN does not have
>> a Vice President, Civil Society Engagement. I have been
>> encouraging Fadi to think about this. We also discussed this gap
>> during the phone call - I mentioned some of our disappointment at
>> the way Civil Society / Non Commercials etc were totally ignored
>> in their engagement plans.
>>
>> +1 and we need to keep pressure in that side,
>
> +2 BD
>>
>> Thanks again Avri,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> On 17 Feb 2013, at 07:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> > any update about this discussion with ICANN staff?
>> > for civil society it is diverse, and I am surprised that you
>> used the term "leaders" , are we really encouraging a kind of high
>> level event? I am not sure that only institutions and
>> organizations are only the representative of civil society. I do
>> think that you agree with me that many individuals highly
>> involved and being part of many communities like free software,
>> FoE etc are no member of any structure, some of those individuals
>> are really doubtful about ICANN and the "centralisation" of DNS
>> for example, that is probably totally different from the
>> perspective of big non-commercial organisations or associations
>> involved in developing world.
>> >
>> >
>> > Rafik
>> >
>> > ps at least I learned that there is yet another diagram for some
>> purpose called vena diagram :)
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130218/3ef4acb3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list