ENC: [council] Board Resolution on individual users

[Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza]

Dear NCUCers: I am forwarding an email from Denise Michel that we have just received at the GNSO list. It addresses some of the debates we are having on the recent board resolution regarding the role of individual users.

Best,
Carlos  

-----Mensagem original-----
De: owner-council at gnso.icann.org em nome de Denise Michel
Enviada: ter 20/1/2009 03:20
Para: council at gnso.icann.org; liaison6c
Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Alan Greenberg; Janis Karklins; Bertrand de La Chapelle
Assunto: [council] Board Resolution on individual users
 
Dear Councilors and other interested parties:

There has been some community discussion over the past weeks regarding the
11 December Board
Resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-11dec08.htm>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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/restructure-working-group-en.htm>)
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<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/>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<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-users>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<http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf>,
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<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-01oct08.htm>,
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 <policy-staff at icann.org> if you need assistance or
would like to discuss these matters.


Regards,

Denise Michel
ICANN Vice President
Policy Development