<<<
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
>>>
|