[council] Re: Board Resolution on individual users

[William Drake]

Done, so now Avri has it on both lists.

BD

On Jan 20, 2009, at 6:42 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> I can't post to the GNSO list, so I request a NCUC councilor forward  
> this important clarification on the GNSO list.
>
>> We have heard from the NCUC chair, council reps and others that the  
>> only
>> appropriate interested GNSO parties are from the NCUC.
>
>
> Not true.  We said "noncommercial stakeholders" - we did not say  
> "NCUC".  Important distinction.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> PS:  The link to entire GNSO Council mailing list archive seems to  
> be "forbidden"????
>        http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/
>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>> Date: 2009/1/20
>> Subject: [council] Re: Board Resolution on individual users
>> To: GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl at hovtek.com.au>, Janis Karklins <janis.karklins at icann.org 
>> >, Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> To be honest in reading this, I still don't know if the so called
>> 'all-GNSO' (1 rep from each SG or constituency + observer from GAC)
>> approach I suggested, with the addition of the representatives of the
>> potential new constituencies is the right answer.  It seems to  
>> indicate
>> that if that is what the council wanted to do, that would be ok.  It
>> also seems to indicate that if it was only NCUC participants, that  
>> would
>> be ok too or some solution in between (e.g. 3 NCUC and 1 from each of
>> the other houses  ...).  If I read correctly it also would allow a
>> solution that opened it up to any 'interested parties' to self  
>> identify
>> and participate in the dialogue.  The only sine qua non is that it
>> include representatives of those groups wanting to form  
>> constituencies
>> and ALAC.
>>
>> We have heard from the NCUC chair, council reps and others that the  
>> only
>> appropriate interested GNSO parties are from the NCUC.  I would  
>> like to
>> hear from some of the rest of the councilors to determine what path  
>> we
>> should take.
>>
>> As the deadline is soon, I think that ALAC is starting along the  
>> path as
>> was suggested earlier while waiting for the GNSO Council to decide  
>> what
>> it wants to do.  They are very concerned with having at least some
>> answer - at least methodology and a request for more time -  by the
>> deadline.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> a.
>>
>> On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 21:20 -0800, Denise Michel wrote:
>> > Dear Councilors and other interested parties:
>> >
>> > There has been some community discussion over the past weeks  
>> regarding
>> > the 11 December Board Resolution seeking a recommendation on how to
>> > incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users  
>> in
>> > the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways.  I would like to
>> > try to clarify the context of that resolution and clear up any
>> > misperceptions about its intent.
>> >
>> > This particular Resolution is the latest step on the part of the  
>> Board
>> > to resolve a fundamental strategic issue for the organization, that
>> > is, the appropriate role and representation of individual  
>> (commercial
>> > and non-commercial) Internet users in ICANN, and specifically  
>> within
>> > the GNSO.  Its intent is to garner a recommendation from the
>> > interested community to assist the Board in resolving a  
>> recommendation
>> > made to the Board by the Working Group on GNSO Council  
>> Restructuring
>> > (WG-GCR) that the composition of the non-contracted party voting  
>> house
>> > of the GNSO Council should
>> >
>> > "…be open to membership of all interested parties … that use or
>> > provide services for the Internet, … and should explicitly not be
>> > restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC."
>> >
>> > Because ongoing independent review proceedings of other ICANN
>> > structures have suggested different representational approaches, I
>> > think the Board wanted to ensure ample input and advice was  
>> received
>> > before resolving the matter. The full context and description of  
>> this
>> > issue was contained in the November Public Comment Forum request  
>> for
>> > input (see background materials, comments filed, and Staff  
>> summary of
>> > those contributions).
>> >
>> > The 11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board  
>> identify a
>> > strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO  
>> opportunities
>> > for all user and registrant stakeholders.  In addition to the  
>> previous
>> > public comments, the Board hoped that the Resolution would spur
>> > additional community dialogue and agreement between interested
>> > parties. Given that the original WG-GCR recommendation was a  
>> consensus
>> > position supported by representatives from all the GNSO  
>> constituencies
>> > as well as GAC, ALAC and Nominating Committee participants, and  
>> that
>> > the Board decision on this matter could have broad impact, the  
>> Board
>> > did not mandate any particular methodology regarding the form that
>> > dialogue would take and the Resolution was drafted to offer
>> > flexibility in that regard. The Resolution also recognizes that  
>> this
>> > matter has particularly important (and time sensitive) implications
>> > for creation of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG).
>> >
>> > In view of various community comments since the Resolution was
>> > published, it is important to emphasize that it is not intended  
>> to be
>> > a referendum on the different approaches that have been advanced by
>> > groups working on proposed NCSG charters.  Staff has been
>> > corresponding with and providing assistance to participants about
>> > their efforts to produce draft NCSG charters that will ultimately  
>> be
>> > submitted to the Board.  There appear to remain a few fundamental
>> > differences of opinion about the interpretation of the Board
>> > Governance Committee (BGC) Working Group recommendations,  
>> endorsed by
>> > the Board, particularly regarding the continued primacy of the
>> > constituency structure outlined in the ICANN By-laws.  Proposed
>> > charters are not intended to be within the scope of the 11 December
>> > Resolution.  When community members formally submit to the Board  
>> one
>> > or more petitions/charters for NCSG formation (and other  
>> Stakeholder
>> > Group charters), those efforts will be publicly posted for  
>> comment by
>> > all members of the community and will subsequently be evaluated  
>> by the
>> > Board.
>> >
>> > As directed by the Board at its 1 October 2008 meeting, it is  
>> Staff's
>> > obligation to work with the community to encourage new  
>> participants,
>> > facilitate the creation of new constituencies, and support the
>> > development of four new Stakeholder Groups.  We remain committed to
>> > that process and stand ready to assist members of the community.
>> > Please contact me and the Policy Staff if you need assistance or  
>> would
>> > like to discuss these matters.
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Denise Michel
>> > ICANN Vice President
>> > Policy Development
>> >
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      ncuc-exec at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      ncuc-exec-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/ncuc-exec
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
   Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090120/341fa953/attachment.html>