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