Urgent message re: GNSO Council action on new gTLDs

[Harold Feld]

I agree with Milton but will add the following.

1) How will transportation be funded?  Will each member pay his/her own way (as
at ICANN meetings) or can ICANN be pursuaded to make "needs based" funding
available given the "extraordinary and unanticipated" meeting.  Given that
members of the NCUC must carefully plan and budget for ICANN meetings, including
solicitng funds from foundations.  The meeting will also put the Consticuency in
the position of deciding whether to fund travel to the proposed meeting or
subsequent ICANN meetings.

2) Alternatively, although it is generally not permitted, can the constituency
designate proxies in DC for the meeting.  Again, while not usually permitted,
the unexpected and extraordinary nature of this meeting cries out for flexibility.

Unless the GNSO takes some steps to assist the NCUC to overcome the unique
burdens imposed by this extraordnary and unexpected meeting, this will
effectively disenfranchise the non-commercial user consticuency from a critical
policy debate.  The fact that the meetng is face-to-face demonstrates that
telephone participation or other electronic means of participation will not suffice.

If the NCUC is unable to participate, the resulting policy will be subsequently
subject to criticism that it does not adequately consider the views of
non-commercial users.  Rather than expand effort drafting a policy that would be
subject to endless post hoc criticism and redrafting, it would be better for the
GNSO to display flexibility on the funding or representation issues.



--
Harold Feld
Senior Vice President
Media Access Project