[PC-NCSG] Civil Society Roundtables

Robin Gross robin
Wed Feb 20 00:19:35 EET 2013


Thanks, Avri. I've written to Klaus separately after hearing he  
volunteered to make the first draft of this letter on NCSG's call  
last week.  (Thanks, Klaus!)

So I will work with Klaus and the EC to get this letter started.

Best,
Robin

On Feb 18, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Such a letter would probably have the most punch coming form the  
> NCSG-EC + Chair.
>
> Vetting on NCSG-Discuss might be good too.
>
> In the meantime, I will keep working on my meager personal efforts.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 18 Feb 2013, at 15:04, Robin Gross wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130219/69209b89/attachment-0001.html>



More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list