Fwd: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable
Robin Gross
robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG
Tue Jan 20 00:52:56 CET 2009
FYI: See emails from ICANN Board Member Bruce Tonkin below regarding
this issue for further clarification and elaboration.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Date: January 19, 2009 3:36:31 PM PST
> To: "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: RE: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies
> meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable
>
> Hello Robin,
>
> feel free to pass on.
>
> I could also paraphrase a little more broadly to say that as far as
> I understand the intent is to get the various parties within an
> interest in being part of the non-commercial Stakeholders group to
> get together.
>
> These parties may come from:
>
> - non-commercial constituency
> - ALAC
> - At Large
> - others planning to form new constituencies with a specific
> interest within the non-commercial Stakeholders group
>
> I think it is also important to recognise that while participants
> in the present ALAC may have an interest in participating in the
> non-commercial stakeholders group, they may not mean that ALAC as a
> structure would somehow become part of the non-commercial
> Stakeholders group.
>
>
> Regards,
> Bruce
>
>
> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 January 2009 5:05 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin
> Subject: Re: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies
> meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable
>
> Thank you for the clarification, Bruce.
>
> I'd like to forward this response on to the NCUC list because I
> think it will help in assuaging some concerns by other members of
> the constituency. Would you mind if I forwarded this response to
> the list?
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>
>> Hello Robin,
>>
>> I don' think "members of the GNSO community" was intended to be
>> the whole GNSO. If it was intended to be the whole GNSO - it
>> would have just said that the GNSO work with ALAC, or the GNSO
>> Council work with ALAC.
>>
>> It would have been more appropriately worded as "members of the
>> GNSO community representing non-commercial stakeholders"
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
>> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
>> Sent: Monday, 19 January 2009 7:57 AM
>> To: Council GNSO; Chuck Gomes
>> Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies
>> meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable
>>
>> Thanks, Chuck, for your very reasonable response to our concerns
>> on this matter.
>>
>> Your stated position – that Stakeholder Groups themselves should
>> play a leading role in defining their structure – is the same as
>> ours. You ask, “What gives [us] the impression that the NCSG will
>> be defined by commercial users and contracting parties?” The
>> answer, unfortunately, is the Board resolution of Dec. 12 (and
>> below) and Avri’s proposed response to it. This calls for the
>> NCSG to be defined by the entire GNSO and ALAC – indeed, it does
>> not even mention existing members of NCUC as participants in the
>> process.
>>
>> We are convinced that this is some kind of a mistake by the Board
>> and that it did not really know what it was doing when it passed
>> that resolution. And we have some private communications with
>> Board members that confirm that – it was introduced by staff at
>> the end of a long meeting concerned with gTLDs and was not
>> discussed or debated. However, the resolution is there and
>> concerns us.
>>
>> If you can join us in deferring the formation of this group and
>> resdponding to the Board with some questions about the
>> appropriateness of that resolution we would greatly appreciate it.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> 8. Role of Individual Users in GNSO – Briefing and Action
>>
>> Approved Resolution
>>
>> Whereas, the Board has received varying recommendations on
>> registrant and user involvement in the GNSO, and the issue of how
>> to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet
>> users in constructive yet non-duplicative ways remains an open
>> issue that affects GNSO restructuring.
>>
>> Resolved, (2008-12-11-02) the Board requests 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 (along with the broader non-commercial
>> community) are effectively represented within the GNSO. This
>> recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009
>> for consideration by the Board.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 17, 2009, at 5:34 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>
>>> Robin,
>>>
>>> Please see my responses below.
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
>>> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
>>> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:58 PM
>>> To: Council GNSO
>>> Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> Subject: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies
>>> meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable
>>>
>>> Don't think I can post to the GNSO Council list, so will an NCUC
>>> Councilor please pass along this message. Thank you! Robin
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> Dear GNSO Councilors:
>>>
>>> It is completely unacceptable for the structure of the new NCSG
>>> to be defined and shaped by commercial users and contracting
>>> parties. Noncommercial stakeholders can and will define their
>>> own structure suitable to themselves and not be manipulated by
>>> other stakeholder groups who might seek to undermine its
>>> effectiveness. It is naïve and disingenuous to pretend that the
>>> different SGs don't have competing and often conflicting interests.
>>> [Gomes, Chuck] What gives you the impression that the NCSG will
>>> be defined by commercial users and contracting parties?
>>>
>>> We note that no one has invited NCUC or ALAC to participate in
>>> defining a new structure for the Commercial SG, or the Registrar
>>> and Registry SGs. This kind of discrimination among SGs will
>>> discourage additional noncommercial entities from participating
>>> in ICANN's GNSO.
>>> [Gomes, Chuck] What discrimination?
>>>
>>> Please note that NCUC has already proposed a structure for the
>>> NCSG that has the overwhelming support of the noncommercial
>>> stakeholders currently active in ICANN. We have conveyed it to
>>> At Large, discussed its principles in public meetings in Cairo,
>>> and are in conversations with staff about it now. While we
>>> welcome efforts to amend it from new constituency proponents and
>>> relevant members of At Large, that proposal will serve as the
>>> basis for any NCSG proposals that go to the Board.
>>>
>>> We have no objection in principle to working with At large
>>> members and RALOs in this process, and as noted before we have
>>> already tried to include them in our ongoing process. But we
>>> also note that individual or organizational At Large members may
>>> also be commercial users and thus ineligible to join a future
>>> noncommercial SG, and thus have no legitimate role to play in the
>>> definition of our structure.
>>>
>>> The Board Governance Committee has made it clear on numerous
>>> occasions that Stakeholder Groups themselves should play a
>>> leading role in defining their structure. Explicit statements to
>>> that effect have been made by Roberto Gaetano, former Board
>>> members and BGC member Susan Crawford, and Harald Alvestrand.
>>> This is, quite obviously, the right approach.
>>> [Gomes, Chuck] Agreed. I am just not clear on why you think it
>>> would be different than this. My understanding is that each
>>> Constituency Renewal request and Stakeholder Group Charter will
>>> be developed by the applicable constituencies and Stakeholder
>>> Group members and submitted to the Board for Board approval, not
>>> to the GNSO for GNSO approval. And the Board will judge each
>>> renewal request and SG Charter against the recommendations that
>>> they approved for GNSO improvement.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Robin Gross
>>> Chair of Non-Commercial Users Constituency
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
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://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090119/80a9a294/attachment.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list