ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.


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 >>>