RE: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robin,
 
Please see my responses below.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
        Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:58 PM
        To: Council GNSO
        Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx