<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
Dear Chuck,
I believe your email further below said:
“We need to very quickly "identify some user representatives, especially
individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large
community to develop a recommendation regarding the Board’s request". Does the
NCUC have any recommendations? Should we seek some volunteers from the GA
list? Can anyone recommend an individual user?”
Would there be a need to justify that persons involved need to represent an
individual users perspective rather than overly conflicting with other
interests?
Would this be important to the perception of transparency and complying with
the letter and spirit of what we are trying to do or else impact the
credibility of the process?
Best regards,
Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/>
Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by
mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the
intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute
privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The
reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever
of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by
electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use
of this publication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil &
Jamil is prohibited.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: 06 February 2009 04:03
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Chuck Gomes
Cc: ALAC Working List
Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify the issue, Mike. While Bill and I are
NCUC representatives on the Council, we certainly (as Chuck noted) do not claim
to represent individual users, except insofar as they are members of NCUC. We
are both of us, however, interested in participating - through the GNSO
mechanism - in what we believe to be a very important process for ICANN.
Further, the motion called for the GNSO to "identify user representatives ...
willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a
recommendation" to the Board. As such, I was simply using the language of the
motion.
I am conscious also of the Board's Resolution 2008-12-11-02, seeking a
"recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual
Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways ..." As the
NCUC is committed to facilitating greater and broader individual inclusion, and
as it believes that this effort ought to be inclusive and effective, it seems
to me that it also makes sense for NCUC Councillors (and perhaps even members)
who have expressed an interest to be part of the effort to develop the
requisite recommendation.
I assure everyone that this does not mean Bill and I will only express NCUC's
views, or participate only as NCUC representatives. I do, however, believe that
our participation as GNSO individual nominees will have the added benefit of
facilitating smooth and transparent communications and cooperation between
those groups, individuals and constituencies that have reason to be interested
in the outcome of this process.
I hope this clarifies matters, at least in respect of my own views. BTW, since
I'm not a member of the ALAC Working List, my emails get bounced from that
list. If someone can forward this response to them, I'd be very grateful.
With apologies for the length of this email,
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2/5/2009 4:20 PM >>>
Mike,
I didn't assume they were claiming to be representative of individual users but
rather that they are individual users. All our motion asked for was invidual
users.
Chuck
_____
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:07 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'ALAC Working List'
Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
Hi Mary,
Thanks to you and Bill for volunteering, but could you please describe why you
believe you two are ‘representative’ of individual users?
-Mike R.
_____
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:53 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Alan Greenberg; Chuck Gomes
Cc: ALAC Working List
Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
Everyone,
The NCUC would like to express its thanks to those members who have worked on
the motion and the various activities that accompany it. We believe the
question of individual user engagement is, like public participation, an
important and vital part of the ICANN model and process. The NCUC is also fully
committed to contributing to processes and models, going forward, that will
facilitate individual user participation (non-commercial and otherwise) in the
GNSO and other aspects of ICANN work.
As such, the NCUC would like to nominate two of its Councillors, viz. myself
(Mary) and Bill Drake, to serve as user representatives to assist in creating a
useful and representative recommendation to the Board in this respect.
Best regards,
Mary (for the NCUC)
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2/3/2009 8:19 PM >>>
Avri and all,
We need to very quickly "identify some user representatives, especially
individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large
community to develop a recommendation regarding the Board’s request". Does the
NCUC have any recommendations? Should we seek some volunteers from the GA
list? Can anyone recommend an individual user?
Chuck
_____
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:20 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ALAC Working List
Subject: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
At 29/01/2009 05:42 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
Motion 4
Motion re: Individual Users in the GNSO
=======================================
Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Bill Drake with friendly amendments
by Alan Greenberg
Whereas:
* On 11 December 2008, the ICANN Board approved Resolution 2008-12-11-02
seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of
individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways
and requesting that the recommendation should be submitted no later than 24
January 2009 for consideration by the Board.
* In an email message to the GNSO Council list dated 20 January 2009, the
ICANN Vice President, Policy Development clarified that the11 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.
* The Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring Report sent to the
ICANN Board of Directors on 25 July 2008 recommended that the Non-Contracted
Party/User House would be open to membership of all interested parties that use
or provide services for the Internet, with the obvious exclusion of the
contracted parties and should explicitly not be restricted to domain
registrants as recommended by the BGC and that such recommendation was made in
response to the suggestion of the ALAC Liaison to the Council.
* The GNSO Council Chair previously contacted the ALAC Chair and the GNSO
ALAC Liaison to discuss this topic.
* The potential members of the two GNSO Council Non-Contracted Party
Stakeholder Groups have been tasked with submitting proposed Stakeholder Group
Charters to the ICANN Board prior to the Board meeting on 6 March 2009.
Resolve:
* The Council requests the GNSO Council ALAC Liaison in consultation with
the ALAC Chair to:
* Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community have any concerns
with regard to the recommendation that membership in the Non-Contracted
Party/User House would be open to individual Internet users in addition to
domain name registrants and, if so, to communicate those concerns to the GNSO
Council as soon as practical
The ALAC and At-Large continue to support having users (which includes
registrants) involved in the Non-contracted Party/User House of the GNSO. Our
initial reply to the Board is appended below.
* Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community would like the GNSO
to identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would
be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a
recommendation regarding the Board’s request that could be forwarded to the
appropriate groups for their consideration in developing a stakeholder group
charter and to the Board for action on GNSO improvement recommendations.
We are most certainly interested. As noted in our initial response to the
Board, we are committed to responding to the Board by February 20. Our intent
is to try to reach some common ground with the GNSO-names individuals. To the
extent that we do or do not meet this goal, our response to the Board will note
it.
If in either case the ALAC or At-large community do not accept this proposal
the GNSO council may reconsider the issue.
* Provide weekly progress reports to the Council list regarding the
above.
* The Council directs the Council Chair to:
* Apologize to the Board that it failed to meet the Board established
deadline of 24 January
* Inform the Board that the GNSO:
* Is awaiting information from the ALAC.
* Is willing in cooperation with users to identify user representatives,
especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and
At-Large community to develop a recommendation.
* Will promptly consider next steps and respond to the Board as quickly
as possible after requested information is received from the ALAC as well any
recommendation that may be developed by the ALAC and At-Large community.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote
*Letter from the Chair of the ALAC to the Chair of the Board of ICANN*
I write to you today in connection with ICANN Board Resolution 2008-12-11-02.
Whilst the resolution asked that a recommendation on the modalities for
including Individual Internet users in the GNSO should be presented to the
board by 24^th January, the various parties have been unable to conclude work
in the timeframe provided. Considering that much of the available time between
11^th December and 24^th January was over the festive season, I'm sure you and
the other board members will understand that whilst we are working on the
question, as volunteers during a major family holiday we have had less time for
this issue than would otherwise be the case.
With respect to At-Large we are also very busy with new gTLDs, the ALAC Review,
and the organisation of the At-Large Summit; the Board's request really
couldn't have come at a worse time.
Nevertheless we are working on the question. I have had discussions with Avri
Doria, GNSO Council Chair, on how to convene the various interested parties and
I compliment her efforts to encourage constructive work on this question.
Unfortunately the modalities for joint work by all interested parties has in
itself proven controversial enough that no meeting of that kind has taken place
yet, it does appear that things are moving in a positive direction and that
discussions of a suitably representative nature will be forthcoming.
In the meantime, At-Large has convened a regionally-balanced ad-hoc working
group and we have committed to having a considered response not later than
20^th February, irrespective of what efforts involving broader interests is
able to produce.
What we can say to you at this point is the following:
* At-Large and ALAC does not believe that the answer to individual
Internet user participation in the GNSO requires -- or is even
well-served -- by simply inserting the At-Large community's
structures into the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. In fact, we
believe that would be both confusing to the community and quite
counterproductive.
* The concept of opening the GNSO to "users" instead of
"registrants" was included in the Report of the Working Group on
GNSO Council Restructuring at the instigation of the ALAC. We
remain convinced that the GNSO must include meaningful
participation for those speaking on behalf of individual Internet
users within both the commercial and non-commercial stakeholder
groups. But to be clear, our definition of "user" includes
registrants.
* "meaningful participation" in this context means that those
engaged on behalf of individual Internet users must feel that
their voices are influential and effective and equal to the voices
of other groups in their Stakeholder Group. Without this, there is
no chance that new players can be drawn into the GNSO community.
* We have seen the draft NCUC petition and charter for the NCSG,
held a meeting with members of the NCUC during the ICANN Cairo
meeting to discuss it and we continue to evaluate the proposal.
Without prejudice to that proposal, we believe that the ultimate
structure of the NCSG must provide a place where all voices and
views can be heard on the questions of the day, and where the
structures of the NCSG ensure that no voice is disenfranchised and
in particular that individual personalities are unable to impose
their views on others. Just as "takeover" is an issue within ICANN
as a whole, it is also an issue within a SG.
Whilst I know that the above is not all that you hoped to receive from us this
month, I hope that you will find it useful and we look forward to concluding
our work on this question, as soon as possible.
Of course if you or your colleagues require clarification on any of the above,
I, our ALAC Executive, and the Working Group established for this topic,
remain at your service.
Kindest regards,
(Signed on behalf the ALAC ad-hoc WG on NCSG : GNSO Improvements Implementation)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
ALAC Chair 2007-2009
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|