|
Thanks for the reply Robin. I guess I interpreted the
Board motion much more narrowly, although I can see that how the wording could
easily imply more than I concluded. I assumed that the motion was mainly
focused on the issue of whether individual users should be a part of the GNSO
and the ALAC or just the ALAC because that is one area where the Board has not
finalized its recommendations.
I am not sure what the intent was with regard to the
wording of the Board motion. It seems to me that it would be good to get
clarification from Staff on this.
I do believe that each of us as existing constituencies,
new constituencies and as future stakeholder groups will be evaluated by the Board against the
recommendations that they have approved. I expect that the RyC request for
renewal and the RySG proposed charter will be evaluated by the Board regarding
how we measure up against the overall package of Board approved GNSO improvement
recommendations; to the extent that we don't measure up well, I suspect that
they will come back to us for changes or clarifications. But I don't see
this being the place for Council involvement with regard to specific
constituencies or SGs.
Chuck
Thanks, Chuck, for your very
reasonable response to our concerns on this matter.
Your stated position ? that
Stakeholder Groups themselves should play a leading role in defining their
structure ? is the same as ours. You ask, ?What gives [us] the
impression that the NCSG will be defined by commercial users and contracting
parties?? The answer, unfortunately, is the Board
resolution of Dec. 12 (and below) and Avri?s proposed response to it.
This calls for the NCSG to be defined by the entire GNSO and ALAC ?
indeed, it does not even mention existing members of NCUC as participants in
the process.
We are convinced that this
is some kind of a mistake by the Board and that it did not really know what it
was doing when it passed that resolution. And we have some private
communications with Board members that confirm that ? it was introduced by
staff at the end of a long meeting concerned with gTLDs and was not discussed
or debated. However, the resolution is there and concerns us.
If you can join us in
deferring the formation of this group and resdponding to the Board with some
questions about the appropriateness of that resolution we would greatly
appreciate it.
Thank you,
Robin
8. Role of Individual Users in GNSO ? Briefing and Action
Approved Resolution
Whereas, the Board has received varying recommendations on registrant
and user involvement in the GNSO, and the issue of how to incorporate the
legitimate interests of individual Internet users in constructive yet
non-duplicative ways remains an open issue that affects GNSO
restructuring.
Resolved, (2008-12-11-02) the Board requests that members of the GNSO
community work with members of the ALAC/At-Large community and representatives
of potential new "non-commercial" constituencies to jointly develop a
recommendation for the composition and organizational structure of a
Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the ALAC and its
supporting structures, yet ensures that the gTLD interests of individual
Internet users (along with the broader non-commercial community) are
effectively represented within the GNSO. This recommendation should be
submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the
Board.
On Jan 17, 2009, at 5:34 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Robin,
Please see my responses below.
Chuck
Don't think I can post to the GNSO Council list,
so will an NCUC Councilor please pass along this message. Thank you!
Robin
----
Dear GNSO Councilors:
It is completely unacceptable for the structure
of the new NCSG to be defined and shaped by commercial users and
contracting parties. Noncommercial stakeholders can and will define
their own structure suitable to themselves and not be manipulated by other
stakeholder groups who might seek to undermine its effectiveness. It
is naïve and disingenuous to pretend that the different SGs don't have
competing and often conflicting interests.
[Gomes,
Chuck] What gives you the impression that the NCSG will be defined by
commercial users and contracting parties?
We note that no one has invited NCUC or ALAC to
participate in defining a new structure for the Commercial SG, or the
Registrar and Registry SGs. This kind of discrimination among SGs will
discourage additional noncommercial entities from participating in ICANN's
GNSO.
[Gomes, Chuck] What
discrimination?
Please note that NCUC has already proposed a
structure for the NCSG that has the overwhelming support of the
noncommercial stakeholders currently active in ICANN. We have
conveyed it to At Large, discussed its principles in public meetings in
Cairo, and are in conversations with staff about it now. While we
welcome efforts to amend it from new constituency proponents and relevant
members of At Large, that proposal will serve as the basis for any NCSG
proposals that go to the Board.
We have no objection in principle to working with
At large members and RALOs in this process, and as noted before we have
already tried to include them in our ongoing process. But we also
note that individual or organizational At Large members may also be
commercial users and thus ineligible to join a future noncommercial SG,
and thus have no legitimate role to play in the definition of our
structure.
The Board Governance Committee has made it clear
on numerous occasions that Stakeholder Groups themselves should play a
leading role in defining their structure. Explicit statements to that
effect have been made by Roberto Gaetano, former Board members and BGC
member Susan Crawford, and Harald Alvestrand. This is, quite
obviously, the right approach.
[Gomes, Chuck] Agreed. I am
just not clear on why you think it would be different than this. My
understanding is that each Constituency Renewal request and
Stakeholder Group Charter will be developed by the applicable
constituencies and Stakeholder Group members and submitted to the
Board for Board approval, not to the GNSO for GNSO approval. And the
Board will judge each renewal request and SG Charter against the
recommendations that they approved for GNSO
improvement.
Best,
Robin Gross
Chair of Non-Commercial Users
Constituency
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
|