<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
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
>>>
|