<html>
<body>
At 29/01/2009 05:42 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Motion 4<br>
Motion re: Individual Users in the GNSO<br>
=======================================<br>
Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Bill Drake with friendly
amendments by Alan Greenberg <br>
Whereas:
<ul>
<li>On 11 December 2008, the ICANN Board approved Resolution
2008-12-11-02 seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the
legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in
constructive yet non-duplicative ways and requesting that the
recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for
consideration by the Board.
<li>In an email message to the GNSO Council list dated 20 January 2009,
the ICANN Vice President, Policy Development clarified that the11
December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a strategic
solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for all user
and registrant stakeholders.
<li>The Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring Report sent to the
ICANN Board of Directors on 25 July 2008 recommended that the
Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to membership of all
interested parties that use or provide services for the Internet, with
the obvious exclusion of the contracted parties and should explicitly not
be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC and that
such recommendation was made in response to the suggestion of the ALAC
Liaison to the Council.
<li>The GNSO Council Chair previously contacted the ALAC Chair and the
GNSO ALAC Liaison to discuss this topic.
<li>The potential members of the two GNSO Council Non-Contracted Party
Stakeholder Groups have been tasked with submitting proposed Stakeholder
Group Charters to the ICANN Board prior to the Board meeting on 6 March
2009.
</ul>Resolve:
<ul>
<li>The Council requests the GNSO Council ALAC Liaison in consultation
with the ALAC Chair to:
<ul>
<li>Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community have any concerns
with regard to the recommendation that membership in the Non-Contracted
Party/User House would be open to individual Internet users in addition
to domain name registrants and, if so, to communicate those concerns to
the GNSO Council as soon as practical </blockquote>
</ul>
</ul>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.<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<ul>
<ul>
<li>Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community would like the GNSO
to 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 that could be forwarded to
the appropriate groups for their consideration in developing a
stakeholder group charter and to the Board for action on GNSO improvement
recommendations. </blockquote>
</ul>
</ul>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.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">If in either case the ALAC or
At-large community do not accept this proposal the GNSO council may
reconsider the issue.
<ul>
<ul>
<li>Provide weekly progress reports to the Council list regarding the
above. <br><br>
</ul>
<li>The Council directs the Council Chair to:
<ul>
<li>Apologize to the Board that it failed to meet the Board established
deadline of 24 January
<li>Inform the Board that the GNSO:
<ul>
<li>Is awaiting information from the ALAC.
<li>Is willing in cooperation with users to identify user
representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to
work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation.
<li>Will promptly consider next steps and respond to the Board as quickly
as possible after requested information is received from the ALAC as well
any recommendation that may be developed by the ALAC and At-Large
community.
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>The motion passed unanimously by voice vote </blockquote><br><br>
*Letter from the Chair of the ALAC to the Chair of the Board of
ICANN*<br><br>
I write to you today in connection with ICANN Board Resolution
2008-12-11-02.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
What we can say to you at this point is the following:<br><br>
* At-Large and ALAC does not believe that the answer to
individual<br>
Internet user participation in the GNSO requires
-- or is even<br>
well-served -- by simply inserting the At-Large
community's<br>
structures into the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
Group. In fact, we<br>
believe that would be both confusing to the
community and quite<br>
counterproductive.<br>
* The concept of opening the GNSO to "users"
instead of<br>
"registrants" was included in the
Report of the Working Group on<br>
GNSO Council Restructuring at the instigation of
the ALAC. We<br>
remain convinced that the GNSO must include
meaningful<br>
participation for those speaking on behalf of
individual Internet<br>
users within both the commercial and
non-commercial stakeholder<br>
groups. But to be clear, our definition of
"user" includes<br>
registrants.<br>
* "meaningful participation" in this context means
that those<br>
engaged on behalf of individual Internet users
must feel that<br>
their voices are influential and effective and
equal to the voices<br>
of other groups in their Stakeholder Group.
Without this, there is<br>
no chance that new players can be drawn into the
GNSO community.<br>
* We have seen the draft NCUC petition and charter for the
NCSG,<br>
held a meeting with members of the NCUC during
the ICANN Cairo<br>
meeting to discuss it and we continue to
evaluate the proposal.<br>
Without prejudice to that proposal, we believe
that the ultimate<br>
structure of the NCSG must provide a place where
all voices and<br>
views can be heard on the questions of the day,
and where the<br>
structures of the NCSG ensure that no voice is
disenfranchised and<br>
in particular that individual personalities are
unable to impose<br>
their views on others. Just as
"takeover" is an issue within ICANN<br>
as a whole, it is also an issue within a
SG.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<br>
Kindest regards,<br><br>
(Signed on behalf the ALAC ad-hoc WG on NCSG : GNSO Improvements
Implementation)<br><br>
Cheryl Langdon-Orr<br>
ALAC Chair 2007-2009<br><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>