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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Am I correct that up to this point we have three volunteers: Bill Drake, Mary 
Wong and Avri.   Did I miss anyone?  Any additional individual volunteers 
should speak up very soon.

Alan - Will you make sure that these three are informed how to participate in 
the ongoing work of the ALAC in this regard?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 1:34 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
> 
> 
> 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.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
>