ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< 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 >>>