<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16788" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV>Hi all, here is some further information on the issue. Note that it is something I (in my limited time on the GNSO Council so far) believe is critical for NCUC members - both as potential members either of a reconstituted NCSG or a new Constituency, or indeed, both (as the proposal we submitted to the Board contemplates) - to monitor. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The implications of the 11 December Board resolution has generated some discussion within the Council. Bill and Carlos will correct me if my impressions are mistaken, but my sense is that the Council is looking for concrete guidance as to how individual Internet users can be more and better incorporated into the new GNSO structure. Similarly, as Denise Michel's email (below) seems to indicate, that is the Board's main aim in passing the resolution in question.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The ALAC is now in the process of forming a GNSO/ALAC working group to discuss the matter, specifically, to formulate an ALAC response to the Board on a proposed new NCSG.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I for one do not want the process to turn into a political battle between different groups of non-commercial users (whether from NCUC, the ALAC or others), as the important goal is to broaden and increase both individual as well as non-commercial participation in the GNSO (and more broadly, ICANN). I certainly do not want the current uncertainty/ambiguity/confusion to lead to conflict that could potentially *reduce* such participation.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>While the fundamental question of the relationship between the SGs and new Constituencies that may be approved by the Board remains unresolved (and is a question that can impact the makeup and voting power of the new GNSO bicameral house), may I ask for your input, comments or insight into how best we three Councillors can represent your concerns while ensuring a continued place at the negotiating table for non-commercial users?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks; it's my hope that with some member feedback we'll be better equipped to speak for the community on what is an issue of vital importance.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Cheers</DIV>
<DIV>Mary</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#800080>Mary W S Wong</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>Professor of Law</DIV>
<DIV>Franklin Pierce Law Center</DIV>
<DIV>Two White Street</DIV>
<DIV>Concord, NH 03301</DIV>
<DIV>USA</DIV>
<DIV>Email: <A href="mailto:mwong@piercelaw.edu">mwong@piercelaw.edu</A></DIV>
<DIV>Phone: 1-603-513-5143</DIV>
<DIV>Webpage: <A href="http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php">http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php</A></DIV>
<DIV>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: <A href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</A></DIV><BR><BR>>>> Milton L Mueller <mueller@SYR.EDU> 1/20/2009 11:53 AM >>><BR>This is a good sign, it looks like staff is backing away from trying to dictate a new NCSG structure, but we still have a long ways to go, as there are many misunderstandings about the transition that serve as barriers to progress. I also received a message from Roberto Gaetano, I am not sure whether it is intended to be confidential but I will send it to this list if I can. <BR><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-<BR>> DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza<BR>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:36 AM<BR>> To: NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<BR>> Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ENC: [council] Board Resolution on individual<BR>> users<BR>> <BR>> Dear NCUCers: I am forwarding an email from Denise Michel that we have<BR>> just received at the GNSO list. It addresses some of the debates we are<BR>> having on the recent board resolution regarding the role of individual<BR>> users.<BR>> <BR>> Best,<BR>> Carlos<BR>> <BR>> -----Mensagem original-----<BR>> De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org em nome de Denise Michel<BR>> Enviada: ter 20/1/2009 03:20<BR>> Para: council@gnso.icann.org; liaison6c<BR>> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Alan Greenberg; Janis Karklins; Bertrand de La<BR>> Chapelle<BR>> Assunto: [council] Board Resolution on individual users<BR>> <BR>> Dear Councilors and other interested parties:<BR>> <BR>> There has been some community discussion over the past weeks regarding the<BR>> 11 December Board<BR>> Resolution<<A href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim">http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim</A>-report-<BR>> 11dec08.htm>seeking<BR>> a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of<BR>> individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative<BR>> ways. I would like to try to clarify the context of that resolution and<BR>> clear up any misperceptions about its intent.<BR>> <BR>> This particular Resolution is the latest step on the part of the Board to<BR>> resolve a fundamental strategic issue for the organization, that is, the<BR>> appropriate role and representation of individual (commercial and<BR>> non-commercial) Internet users in ICANN, and specifically within the GNSO.<BR>> Its intent is to garner a recommendation from the interested community to<BR>> assist the Board in resolving a recommendation made to the Board by the<BR>> Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring<BR>> (WG-GCR<<A href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/restructure">http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/restructure</A>-working-group-<BR>> en.htm>)<BR>> that the composition of the non-contracted party voting house of the GNSO<BR>> Council should<BR>> <BR>> ".be open to membership of all interested parties . that use or provide<BR>> services for the Internet, . and should explicitly not be restricted to<BR>> domain registrants as recommended by the BGC."<BR>> <BR>> Because ongoing independent review<BR>> proceedings<<A href="http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/">http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/</A>>of other ICANN structures<BR>> have suggested different representational<BR>> approaches, I think the Board wanted to ensure ample input and advice was<BR>> received before resolving the matter. The full context and description of<BR>> this issue was contained in the November Public Comment<BR>> Forum<<A href="http://www.icann.org/en/public">http://www.icann.org/en/public</A>-comment/#gnso-users>request for<BR>> input (see background materials, comments filed, and Staff<BR>> summary of those contributions).<BR>> <BR>> The 11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a<BR>> strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for<BR>> all user and registrant stakeholders. In addition to the previous public<BR>> comments, the Board hoped that the Resolution would spur additional<BR>> community dialogue and agreement between interested parties. Given that<BR>> the<BR>> original WG-GCR recommendation was a consensus position supported by<BR>> representatives from all the GNSO constituencies as well as GAC, ALAC and<BR>> Nominating Committee participants, and that the Board decision on this<BR>> matter could have broad impact, the Board did not mandate any particular<BR>> methodology regarding the form that dialogue would take and the Resolution<BR>> was drafted to offer flexibility in that regard. The Resolution also<BR>> recognizes that this matter has particularly important (and time<BR>> sensitive)<BR>> implications for creation of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG).<BR>> <BR>> In view of various community comments since the Resolution was published,<BR>> it<BR>> is important to emphasize that it is not intended to be a referendum on<BR>> the<BR>> different approaches that have been advanced by groups working on proposed<BR>> NCSG charters. Staff has been corresponding with and providing assistance<BR>> to participants about their efforts to produce draft NCSG charters that<BR>> will<BR>> ultimately be submitted to the Board. There appear to remain a few<BR>> fundamental differences of opinion about the interpretation of the Board<BR>> Governance Committee (BGC) Working Group<BR>> recommendations<<A href="http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso">http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso</A>-improvements/gnso-<BR>> improvements-report-03feb08.pdf>,<BR>> endorsed by the Board, particularly regarding the continued primacy of the<BR>> constituency structure outlined in the ICANN By-laws. Proposed charters<BR>> are<BR>> not intended to be within the scope of the 11 December Resolution. When<BR>> community members formally submit to the Board one or more<BR>> petitions/charters for NCSG formation (and other Stakeholder Group<BR>> charters), those efforts will be publicly posted for comment by all<BR>> members<BR>> of the community and will subsequently be evaluated by the Board.<BR>> <BR>> As directed by the Board at its 1 October 2008<BR>> meeting<<A href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes">http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes</A>-01oct08.htm>,<BR>> it is Staff's obligation to work with the community to encourage new<BR>> participants, facilitate the creation of new constituencies, and support<BR>> the<BR>> development of four new Stakeholder Groups. We remain committed to that<BR>> process and stand ready to assist members of the community. Please<BR>> contact me<BR>> and the Policy Staff <policy-staff@icann.org> if you need assistance or<BR>> would like to discuss these matters.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Regards,<BR>> <BR>> Denise Michel<BR>> ICANN Vice President<BR>> Policy Development<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>