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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please add James Bladel (jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx) as a volunteer for this
list and discussion.

Thanks,
Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, February 09, 2009 9:17 am
To: "Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, 
<avri@xxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


If we can get a volunteer almost immediately, it probably would be fine,
at least in my opinion.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Harris [mailto:harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 10:03 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Stéphane Van Gelder; avri@xxxxxxx; GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
> 
> With regards to involving individual
> users, what about the IEEE ? I just
> checked their website:
> www.ieee.org
> 
> The members are individuals (engineering professionals), and 
> would appear to qualify as "users" of the Internet?
> 
> Tony Harris
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Stéphane Van Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; 
> <avri@xxxxxxx>; "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 1:37 PM
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
> 
> 
> >
> > 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.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> 
>