ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

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


Dear Chuck,

I believe your email further below said:

 

“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?”

Would there be a need to justify that persons involved need to represent an 
individual users perspective rather than overly conflicting with other 
interests?

Would this be important to the perception of transparency and complying with 
the letter and spirit of what we are trying to do or else impact the 
credibility of the process?

Best regards,

Zahid Jamil

Barrister-at-law

Jamil & Jamil

Barristers-at-law

219-221 Central Hotel Annexe

Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan

Cell: +923008238230

Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025

Fax: +92 21 5655026

www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 

 

Notice / Disclaimer

This message contains confidential information and its contents are being 
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please 
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by 
mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the 
intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute 
privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The 
reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever 
of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by 
electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use 
of this publication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & 
Jamil is prohibited.

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: 06 February 2009 04:03
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Chuck Gomes
Cc: ALAC Working List
Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.

 

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify the issue, Mike. While Bill and I are 
NCUC representatives on the Council, we certainly (as Chuck noted) do not claim 
to represent individual users, except insofar as they are members of NCUC. We 
are both of us, however, interested in participating - through the GNSO 
mechanism - in what we believe to be a very important process for ICANN. 
Further, the motion called for the GNSO to "identify user representatives ... 
willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a 
recommendation" to the Board. As such, I was simply using the language of the 
motion.

 

I am conscious also of the Board's 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 ..." As the 
NCUC is committed to facilitating greater and broader individual inclusion, and 
as it believes that this effort ought to be inclusive and effective, it seems 
to me that it also makes sense for NCUC Councillors (and perhaps even members) 
who have expressed an interest to be part of the effort to develop the 
requisite recommendation. 

 

I assure everyone that this does not mean Bill and I will only express NCUC's 
views, or participate only as NCUC representatives. I do, however, believe that 
our participation as GNSO individual nominees will have the added benefit of 
facilitating smooth and transparent communications and cooperation between 
those groups, individuals and constituencies that have reason to be interested 
in the outcome of this process.

 

I hope this clarifies matters, at least in respect of my own views. BTW, since 
I'm not a member of the ALAC Working List, my emails get bounced from that 
list. If someone can forward this response to them, I'd be very grateful.

 

With apologies for the length of this email,

Mary

 

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> 2/5/2009 4:20 PM >>>

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 >>>