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

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

In my opinion we first need to be clear on what our task is and is not:
I believe that Denise's message clarifies that our primary task is to
comment on the role of individual users in the GNSO; it is not to
comment on the NCSG or to help the NCUC and other interested NCSG
stakeholders develop their charter.

As Denise pointed out, the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring
(WG-GCR), which consisted of representatives of each constituency and
the ALAC as well as a NomCom appointee, recommended to the Board 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."  So
it might be useful as a first step to simply confirm that we still
support this recommendation.  I wouldn't think that this step should
require any special working group or drafting team.  Do any
constituencies or NomCom appointees disagree with this recommendation?

Note that the recommendation was made by the WG-GCR in response to
requests from Alan, the ALAC representative on the WG. Therefore, a
second reasonable step would seem to me to be confirmation from the ALAC
that they do indeed support the WG-GCR recommendation.  It sounds like
the ALAC is already making plans to focus on this issue so I suggest
that Avri simply ask them whether they support the WG-GCR recommendation
and to provide any comments they have in that regard.

If we confirm that both the GNSO and ALAC support involvement of
individual users (beyond just registrants) in the GNSO, then here are my
suggestions for next steps:

1. The GNSO and ALAC should communicate that to the Board.

2. Assuming the Board approves the recommendation, then it will need to
be determined how that can best happen.  That, I believe, is primarily
the task of the existing and potential members of the future
non-commercial and commercial SGs.  They have the responsibility of
developing and submitting charters.

3. It will be up to the Board to review the proposed charters and decide
whether it fulfills the GNSO improvement recommendations related to
constituencies and stakeholder groups.

I believe that it would be wise for all of us in both GNSO houses to
attempt to involve potential future stakeholders in our charter
development efforts to the extent that is feasible.  I recognize that
that is a very challenging task.  But, as applicable, we could at least
reach out to invidual users and to groups that have formally
communicated expressions of interests to form constituencies and request
their input.  In the case of individual users, the At Large community
hopefully can serve as a good source of individual users.

Should the GNSO as a whole have any role in determining how to
incorporate individual users into the noncontracted party house?  I
think that is up to those who will make up the noncontracted party
house, both existing participants and future participants.  I believe
all existing participants are currently working on developing draft SG
charters and hopefully they are involving future participants in that
process.  If the latter is not the case, then it may be that the Council
can help facilitate that.  If the Council so approves, a reasonable step
for the Council to take might be to reach out to the future
participants, especially to individual users via the ALAC (or other
means) and to groups that have formally expressed interest in forming
constituencies to find out if they have been involved in charter
development activities.  In my opinion, this should only be done with
the concurrence of the potential applicable stakeholder group members
(i.e., those preparing charters).

If the GNSO and/or ALAC do not support incorporating individual users in
the GNSO or if the Board does not approve that recommendation, then I
think our task may be simpler.  But, because our deadline for submitting
charters is coming up very quickly, we need some indication very soon
(NLT end of January) where each of three major parties stand, the GNSO,
the ALAC and the Board.  It would be a waste of time developing charters
that involve individual users if that is not going to happen.

Chuck

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 5:46 AM
> To: GNSO Council
> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Janis Karklins; Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Subject: [council] Re: Board Resolution on individual users
> 
> 
> 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
> > 
> 
>