[council] Re: Board Resolution on individual users

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

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
>