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

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

Alan,

Please add Zahid to the list of volunteers.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 2:40 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.

I volunteer as well 

Zahid Jamil 


-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 07 February 2009 00:01
To: avri@xxxxxxx; GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Alan Greenberg 
<alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.


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.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
>