Fwd: [council] Re: Board Resolution on individual users

Tue Jan 20 18:42:03 CET 2009

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090120/d591c815/attachment.html>