Dear Avri

[Avri Doria]

Hi Cheryl,

You make a good point about the inclusion of representatives of the
potential new "non-commercial" constituencies.   As the effort to put
a work group together continues I will confirm that this consideration
is taken into account.

Thanks

a.



On 15 Jan 2009, at 11:45, Cheryl Preston wrote:

> Dear Avri and Adam,
>
> The Board resolution clearly states that "GNSO community work with
> members of the ALAC/At-
> Large community and representatives of potential new "non-
> commercial" constituencies ."  And yet there is no provision in this
> suggestion for anyone from the proposed new constituencies. What is
> going on?
>
> Cheryl B. Preston
> Edwin M. Thomas
> Professor of Law
> J. Reuben Clark Law School
> Brigham Young University
> 434 JRCB
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801) 422-2312
> prestonc at lawgate.byu.edu
>
>>>> Adam Peake <ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP> 1/15/2009 4:44 am >>>
> (resending a couple of messages I tried to send a day or so ago, but
> got caught somewhere...)
>
> See email below from Avri to the GNSO council.
>
> I hope the NCUC will quickly respond to say the discussion should be
> between the NCUC members and ALAC. Hope other council members will
> have the good sense to keep out.  Think it's a very poorly worded
> motion by the board.  Would be interesting to know who proposed it,
> seconded and how it came to pass. Perhaps our council reps could ask.
>
> Adam
>
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06146.html
>
> [council] First thoughts on acting on BR 2008-12-11 02
>
> Hi,
>
>
> As was briefly mentioned at the last meeting, we need to do something
> about this.
>
> Board resoluion 2008-12-11-02
>
>
> "that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At-
> Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial"
> constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the
> composition and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial
> Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting
> structures, yet ensures that the gTLD interests of individual
> Internet users"
>
>
> The following is an idea that has been discussed between the chair of
> ALAC and myself and vetted a little with relevant staff. I understand
> she has taken the proposal to the ALAC (I thought we were going to
> talk about it some more first, but never mind) and I am now bringing
> it to the council.
>
> Given the pressure of time, we could use a model similar to the one
> developed by the board to force the GNSO constituencies to action on
> restructuring.
>
> I.e. Create a joint group of GNSO and ALAC representatives to spend
> 30 days coming up with a suggestion.
>
> Number of people:
>
>
> From the GNSO we could have at
>
>
> Option  a. 1 per constituency + an NCA = 7
> Option b. 1 from each SG + an NCA = 5
>
>
> (given were we are heading with the restructuring it might be
> interesting to try that model. note this is not council members but
> constituency/SG members)
>
> From ALAC there should be at least one from each region = 5
> If we went with the 7 person model, not sure how they would pick the
> other 2.
>
> We should add a GAC observer as well.
>
>
> And we could ask (i.e. volunteer) Rob to coordinate. He handled the
> last such effort very well.
>
>
> As with the structuring group, they would be responsible for
> communicating with their constituencies/regional organizations/SGs
> and for coming to consensus.
>
> The recommendation would then be subject to public review and then
> subject to approval by both the GNSO Council and ALAC using their own
> methods
>
> This would take longer then board motion requested, but we could at
> least give them a plan and a schedule. I figure it would take minimum
> 8 weeks from Time 0. If we act quickly, we could be ready for open
> discussions in Mexico City, with the comment period ending a week
> after that meeting. Allowing for a decsions shortly thereafter.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Note: One possible objection is that this discussion is relevant only
> to the NCSG and not to the rest of the GNSO community and thus there
> is no role for the rest of the GNSO community or for the GNSO council
> in this process. I can certainly see the logic of his view and accept
> it if it is the predominant view in the council. I do, however, feel
> obliged to make sure we have responded to the Board motion, and hence
> the proposal and the discussion.
>
> a.
>
>
> END
>
>
> At 12:39 PM -0500 1/13/09, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It is not a staff proposal.
>>
>> It is a proposal which i was part of initiating for how to respond
>> to:
>>
>>>
>>> Board resoluion 2008-12-11-02
>>>
>>> "that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/
>>> At-
>>> Large community and representatives of potential new "non-
>>> commercial"
>>> constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the
>>> composition
>>> and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
>>> that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet
>>> ensures that the gTLD interests of individual Internet users"
>>
>>
>> As I indicated in my note to the council on this:
>>
>>>
>>> Note: One possible objection is that this discussion is relevant
>>> only to the NCSG and not to the rest of the GNSO community and thus
>>> there is no role for the rest of the GNSO community or for the GNSO
>>> council in this process.    I can certainly see the logic of his
>>> view and accept it if it is the predominant view in the council.  I
>>> do, however, feel obliged to make sure we have responded to the
>>> Board motion, and hence the proposal and the discussion.
>>
>> I look forward to council discussion on this to determine the right
>> course of action for resolving the issues contained in the Board's
>> motion and for responding to the Board's motion.  I expect that the
>> NCUC council members will give a strong indication of the NCUC's
>> preferences in this matter.
>>
>> As for being on the NCUC list.  As someone who is at the same time
>> an academic and a member of several organizations that are NCUC
>> members but not an NCUC member per se, I read the list but do not
>> generally respond unless directly 'addressed'.  I am grateful I am
>> allowed to read the list as email as opposed to having to go to the
>> archive.
>>
>> As for my reelection;  while I do very much appreciate the
>> enthusiastic support of NCUC council members and their nomination
>> for my first two terms, just as I very much appreciate having been
>> nominated by members of the RrC for the most recent election, I try
>> to do the job as openly and fairly as I can without moderating my
>> views based on who nominated me.  That does not mean I don't blow it
>> from time to time, but when I do it is because I got it wrong and
>> not because X or Y supported my nomination.
>>
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13 Jan 2009, at 12:14, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>> So, Avri has replied privately indicating that she is not the
>>> author of this proposal, it is a staff proposal and (here she needs
>>> to speak for herself) she believes that the structure of a NCSG may
>>> indeed be NC stakeholders' business and not the GNSO's business, so
>>> this is not as bad as I thought it was. However, we do need to take
>>> up with ICANN Staff  exactly what they are trying to do. It's very
>>> dangerous and counter productive for staff to pit different GNSO
>>> factions and constituent groups against each other and very naive
>>> (at best) for them to invite commercial constituencies to play a
>>> role in defining the governance structure of noncommercial
>>> constituencies.
>>>
>>> My apologies to Avri and please don't let my mistake (often it is
>>> hard to follow all this stuff accurately) divert anyone's attention
>>> from the seriousness of this issue.
>