[council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.

Mary Wong MWong at piercelaw.edu
Thu Feb 5 04:52:39 UTC 2009

The NCUC would like to express its thanks to those members who have
worked on the motion and the various activities that accompany it. We
believe the question of individual user engagement is, like public
participation, an important and vital part of the ICANN model and
process. The NCUC is also fully committed to contributing to processes
and models, going forward, that will facilitate individual user
participation (non-commercial and otherwise) in the GNSO and other
aspects of ICANN work.
As such, the NCUC would like to nominate two of its Councillors, viz.
myself (Mary) and Bill Drake, to serve as user representatives to assist
in creating a useful and representative recommendation to the Board in
this respect.
Best regards,
Mary (for the NCUC)
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu 
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php 
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 

>>> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> 2/3/2009 8:19 PM >>>
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?

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:20 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org 
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 
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.

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. 
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. 
The GNSO Council Chair previously contacted the ALAC Chair and the GNSO
ALAC Liaison to discuss this topic. 
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
The Council requests the GNSO Council ALAC Liaison in consultation with
the ALAC Chair to: 
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 
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. 

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. 
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. 
Provide weekly progress reports to the Council list regarding the

The Council directs the Council Chair to: 
Apologize to the Board that it failed to meet the Board established
deadline of 24 January 
Inform the Board that the GNSO: 
Is awaiting information from the ALAC. 
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. 
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
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

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
   * 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
   * "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
     of other groups in their Stakeholder Group. Without this, there
     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
     in particular that individual personalities are unable to impose
     their views on others. Just as "takeover" is an issue within
     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

Cheryl Langdon-Orr
ALAC Chair 2007-2009

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090204/52e0c33b/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list