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

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

Thanks for the reply Robin.  I guess I interpreted the Board motion much more 
narrowly, although I can see that how the wording could easily imply more than 
I concluded.  I assumed that the motion was mainly focused on the issue of 
whether individual users should be a part of the GNSO and the ALAC or just the 
ALAC because that is one area where the Board has not finalized its 
recommendations.
 
I am not sure what the intent was with regard to the wording of the Board 
motion.  It seems to me that it would be good to get clarification from Staff 
on this.
 
I do believe that each of us as existing constituencies, new constituencies and 
as future stakeholder groups will be evaluated by the Board against the 
recommendations that they have approved.  I expect that the RyC request for 
renewal and the RySG proposed charter will be evaluated by the Board regarding 
how we measure up against the overall package of Board approved GNSO 
improvement recommendations; to the extent that we don't measure up well, I 
suspect that they will come back to us for changes or clarifications.  But I 
don't see this being the place for Council involvement with regard to specific 
constituencies or SGs.
 
Chuck
 
 


________________________________

        From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 3:57 PM
        To: Council GNSO; Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        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 <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-11dec08.htm>  (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@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





        



        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