<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

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

Avri and all,
 
We need to very quickly "identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Board?s request".  Does the NCUC have any recommendations?  Should we seek some volunteers from the GA list?  Can anyone recommend an individual user?
 
Chuck

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:20 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ALAC Working List
Subject: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.

At 29/01/2009 05:42 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
Motion 4
Motion re: Individual Users in the GNSO
=======================================
Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Bill Drake with friendly amendments by Alan Greenberg
Whereas: Resolve:
The ALAC and At-Large continue to support having users (which includes registrants) involved in the Non-contracted Party/User House of the GNSO. Our initial reply to the Board is appended below.
We are most certainly interested. As noted in our initial response to the Board, we are committed to responding to the Board by February 20. Our intent is to try to reach some common ground with the GNSO-names individuals. To the extent that we do or do not meet this goal, our response to the Board will note it.

If in either case the ALAC or At-large community do not accept this proposal the GNSO council may reconsider the issue. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote


*Letter from the Chair of the ALAC to the Chair of the Board of ICANN*

I write to you today in connection with ICANN Board Resolution 2008-12-11-02.

Whilst the resolution asked that a recommendation on the modalities for including Individual Internet users in the GNSO should be presented to the board by 24^th January, the various parties have been unable to conclude work in the timeframe provided. Considering that much of the available time between 11^th December and 24^th January was over the festive season, I'm sure you and the other board members will understand that whilst we are working on the question, as volunteers during a major family holiday we have had less time for this issue than would otherwise be the case.

With respect to At-Large we are also very busy with new gTLDs, the ALAC Review, and the organisation of the At-Large Summit; the Board's request really couldn't have come at a worse time.

Nevertheless we are working on the question. I have had discussions with Avri Doria, GNSO Council Chair, on how to convene the various interested parties and I compliment her efforts to encourage constructive work on this question. Unfortunately the modalities for joint work by all interested parties has in itself proven controversial enough that no meeting of that kind has taken place yet, it does appear that things are moving in a positive direction and that discussions of a suitably representative nature will be forthcoming.

In the meantime, At-Large has convened a regionally-balanced ad-hoc working group and we have committed to having a considered response not later than 20^th February, irrespective of what efforts involving broader interests is able to produce.

What we can say to you at this point is the following:

   * At-Large and ALAC does not believe that the answer to individual
     Internet user participation in the GNSO requires -- or is even
     well-served -- by simply inserting the At-Large community's
     structures into the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. In fact, we
     believe that would be both confusing to the community and quite
     counterproductive.
   * The concept of opening the GNSO to "users" instead of
     "registrants" was included in the Report of the Working Group on
     GNSO Council Restructuring at the instigation of the ALAC. We
     remain convinced that the GNSO must include meaningful
     participation for those speaking on behalf of individual Internet
     users within both the commercial and non-commercial stakeholder
     groups. But to be clear, our definition of "user" includes
     registrants.
   * "meaningful participation" in this context means that those
     engaged on behalf of individual Internet users must feel that
     their voices are influential and effective and equal to the voices
     of other groups in their Stakeholder Group. Without this, there is
     no chance that new players can be drawn into the GNSO community.
   * We have seen the draft NCUC petition and charter for the NCSG,
     held a meeting with members of the NCUC during the ICANN Cairo
     meeting to discuss it and we continue to evaluate the proposal.
     Without prejudice to that proposal, we believe that the ultimate
     structure of the NCSG must provide a place where all voices and
     views can be heard on the questions of the day, and where the
     structures of the NCSG ensure that no voice is disenfranchised and
     in particular that individual personalities are unable to impose
     their views on others. Just as "takeover" is an issue within ICANN
     as a whole, it is also an issue within a SG.

Whilst I know that the above is not all that you hoped to receive from us this month, I hope that you will find it useful and we look forward to concluding our work on this question, as soon as possible.

Of course if you or your colleagues require clarification on any of the above, I,  our ALAC Executive, and the Working Group established for this topic, remain at your service.


Kindest regards,

(Signed on behalf the ALAC ad-hoc WG on NCSG : GNSO Improvements Implementation)

Cheryl Langdon-Orr
ALAC Chair 2007-2009