[council] Board Resolution on individual users

[Milton L Mueller]

This is a good sign, it looks like staff is backing away from trying to dictate a new NCSG structure, but we still have a long ways to go, as there are many misunderstandings about the transition that serve as barriers to progress. I also received a message from Roberto Gaetano, I am not sure whether it is intended to be confidential but I will send it to this list if I can. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
> DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:36 AM
> To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ENC: [council] Board Resolution on individual
> users
> 
> 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