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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

I would like to sit in on this group.  I am not sure, however, whether I
should be a proper member or an observer.

While I certainly see myself as an individual user, of both the
commercial and the non-commercial flavor (i am both a technical
contractor with a domain name and a social activist with a domain name),
and think that in some sense my nature as an independent independent
user has fed into my appointment by the nomcom to the GNSO, I cannot say
that I represent Internet users.  Further in the context of any such
effort, I would be as inclined, a chair of the council, to present what
I understood to be the multiplicity of GNSO Council viewpoints as to
present my own view of what was good for both individual users and the
ICANN/GNSO.  I.e. I would try to do both.

I am certainly committed to the overall advisory role of ALAC and as I
have said publicly on more then one occasion, believe that it should
occupy an advisory role on a par with the GAC.  And while I have tended
toward the view that the GNSO constituencies were for contracted parties
and registrants (in agreement with the BGC report), have accepted that
the prevailing view in the council is for the inclusion of users, and as
chair will support that view.  I also believe it is important to find a
way of doing it that is non-duplicative.

So, this is a mixed bag, but if people don't object, I am interested in
participating in the process.

a.


On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 11:37 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> I recommend that we not make a huge issue out of this and simply identify 
> some individual users to work with the ALAC.  First of all, we do not have 
> time because, even with the Board extension, we have to provide any 
> recommendations by 20 February.  Secondly, the key is really to try and 
> develop some sound recommendations about how to involve individual users in 
> the GNSO without being duplicative with the ALAC.  If there are individuals 
> from anywhere in the GNSO that are available and willing to contribute 
> constructively to the work that the ALAC is doing in response to the Board's 
> request, volunteer, but do it quickly because the work is already ongoing and 
> will be over before we know it.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 4:08 AM
> > To: avri@xxxxxxx; GNSO Council
> > Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
> > 
> > 
> > Two good questions.
> > If we are seeking ind. user representatives, it would be nice 
> > to know that's what they actually are and that they do truly 
> > represent the constituency they are claiming to represent.
> > 
> > On the other hand, it is true that we could probably all 
> > qualify as ind.
> > users.
> > 
> > So the risk here is that the ind. user group becomes a kind 
> > of "catch-all".
> > 
> > Stéphane Van Gelder
> > 
> > 
> > Le 06/02/09 06:04, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
> > 
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:37 +0500, Zahid Jamil wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> Would there be a need to justify that persons involved need to 
> > >> represent an individual users perspective rather than overly 
> > >> conflicting with other interests?
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > How does one do this?
> > > 
> > > In some sense aren't we all individual users?  So would it 
> > not be up 
> > > to each volunteer to indicate whether they felt they could 
> > represent 
> > > the viewpoint of an individual user in this particular effort?
> > > 
> > > a.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>