November 2008 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Draft Response to BGC Midpoint Consultation: On designated ALAC Seats on the ICANN Board
by Carlton Samuels Nov. 4, 2008

Nov. 4, 2008

Dear Colleagues: Based on the feedback and various discussions, I present this text hereunder as a representative draft response: "The ALAC welcomes the recommendation of the BGC that the ALAC is allocated two (2) seats on the ICANN Board. This development is very useful in projecting to the AT-Large community and users in general the value that ICANN place on our engagement in the process and provides a real opportunity to see the views of the community reflected in policy and administration. When the time comes for this recommendation to be implemented, we would wish that the ALAC is reserved the right to determine a selection process for these seats with a right of recall embedded." Carlton

2 1

Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] Draft Response to BGC Midpoint Consultation: On designated ALAC Seats on the ICANN Board ** OFFLIST **
by Carlton Samuels Nov. 4, 2008

Nov. 4, 2008

Note a small change in the text at the final sentence.... Carlton Dear Colleagues: Based on the feedback and various discussions, I present this text hereunder as a representative draft response: "The ALAC welcomes the recommendation of the BGC that the ALAC is allocated two (2) seats on the ICANN Board. This development is very useful in projecting to the AT-Large community and users in general the value that ICANN place on our engagement in the process and provides a real opportunity to see the views of the community reflected in policy and administration. When the time comes for this recommendation to be implemented, we would wish that At-Large is reserved the right to determine a selection process for these seats with a right of recall embedded." Carlton _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: *nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org *Win IM: *ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com* / AIM/iSight: *nashtonhart(a)mac.com* / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: *https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart*

1 0

Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities
by Patrick Vande Walle Nov. 4, 2008

Nov. 4, 2008

I am tasked with coming up with a position on the relationship with other entities, and particularly, the fact that ALAC should or not be the only entity to represent individual internet users. The summary is as follows. There is a clearly two perceptions. Comments welcome. ---------------------- 1. ALAC should be the sole representative. If there are different groups, the voice of end users may actually be diluted, because these groups may not come up with similar positions. Further, the ALAC is the only end-user group in ICANN to be able to have positions on other issues than just gTLD policy. Finally, the process to elect ALAC members, though heavy and indirect, is real bottom-up. 2. There should be other groups representing users within the community. The rationale is that some users may not exactly fit in the ALAC mold. The suggestion is that the GNSO user house should have clearly identified groups (domain name registrants, end users, academia). There is a concern concerning the legitimacy of the representatives of these groups and it is not clear how they will be chosen. Further and due to the several levels of decision within the new GNSO, it is not clear if the voice of individuals will still be heard in this context. On point 12, it has been several times reminded that real logistical issues that reduces the potential of ALAC to be more efficient in the policy development. It is noted that other SOs should take into account that the multilayer structure of ALAC slows down considerably the work. Relationship with other ICANN entities 10. The ALAC is the appropriate organisational channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes 11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice 12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be strengthened both within ALAC for the development of policy advice and within SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues

9 12

GNSO Constituency Renewal - FYI
by Nick Ashton-Hart Nov. 4, 2008

Nov. 4, 2008

Dear Members: As there was a discussion of a model for non-commercial and Internet end-user engagement in the GNSO with the NCUC yesterday, I thought you might find the email below of interest. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> Date: Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:20 AM Subject: Constituency Renewal To: liaison6c <liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org> Constituency Leaders: As you know, the ICANN Board, among its various decisions during the August and October meetings, directed existing GNSO Constituencies to confirm their status with the Board by submitting confirming documents in advance of the February 2009 Board meeting. The Board directed the Staff to help with this including the design and development of a streamlined process and appropriate mechanisms to assist with the Board's timely recognition and approval of the existing constituencies. (Note: excerpts of the specific resolutions and relevant Bylaw are provided at the end of this message). In response to the Board's direction, Staff proposes the following steps to assist you and the Board with the renewal/confirmation process. Your feedback on this proposal is welcomed, along with your guidance on how Staff can be most helpful in this endeavor. During November, December and January, each existing constituency: 1) Reviews its practices, operations, and charter documents, as appropriate, to evaluate its adherence to the requirements of Bylaw Article X, Section 5, Subsection 3, which require that each constituency represent the interests of its stakeholder communities globally and operates to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner, consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness; 2) Provides a written report to the Board (that includes its Board-approved charter) evaluating its compliance with its charter and Bylaw requirements on or before the February 2009 Board meeting, which is currently proposed for the first week of the month. Upon Receipt of Each Constituency submission the Board: 3) Will direct Staff to post receipt and acknowledgement of the confirmations on the GNSO Improvements Implementation web page - http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements; 4) The constituency reports will be subject to a 21-day public comment period/forum following the Board meeting; 5) The Staff will provide a summary/analysis of the comments submitted regarding each constituency report. 6) The Board will make a decision on whether to re-confirm/recertify each constituency. Staff would be pleased to provide any assistance needed, including providing feedback on any Constituency's prospective submissions to the Board. It should be noted that the GNSO Improvements Report approved by the Board has additional guidelines and recommendations for constituencies. The timeline for constituency renewal likely will not allow you to factor all these into your upcoming Board submission. It is expected that this work will be ongoing as part of the GNSO Improvements implementation efforts. Please send any questions or comments to policy-staff(a)icann.org. Best regards, Denise Michel Denise.michel(a)icann.org Policy-staff(a)icann.org Relevant Board Resolution Excerpts: At its 28 August Board meeting, the Board adopted the following resolution, "It is, Resolved, The Board requests that existing constituencies confirm their status with the Board during the intervening time period (later specified as February 2009; see below), and requires constituencies to formally confirm their status every 3 years to ensure that they continue to meet the requirements of Article X, Section 5, subsection 3 of the ICANN Bylaws. This will be an opportunity for existing constituencies to demonstrate compliance with the principles of representativeness, openness, transparency and fairness set forth in the ICANN Bylaws. At its 1 October 2008 meeting, the Board adopted the following resolution, "It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.10) Staff also is directed to work with the existing GNSO constituencies to design and develop a streamlined process along with appropriate mechanisms that will assist with the Board's timely recognition and approval of existing constituencies. " Further, "It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.15), the Board amends its previous implementation timetable and directs that the transition to a new bicameral GNSO Council voting structure take place over a phased implementation schedule that begins immediately and ends in June 2009 with the seating of the new Council. The implementation phases will be as follows: Phase 1 GNSO Council restructuring implementation plan submitted in advance of the December 2008 Board Meeting; Phase 2 Existing Constituencies submit confirmation documents to the Board for review in advance of the February 2009 Board Meeting {emphasis added}; Phase 3 Stakeholder Groups submit formal plans for Board approval for consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting; and Phase 4 Stakeholder Groups with plans approved by the Board select Council representatives, and the newly structured GNSO Council is seated by the June 2009 Asia-Pacific ICANN Meeting." The relevant Bylaw section, referenced above, is included below for your convenience: "Article X, Section 5, Subsection 3. Each Constituency identified in paragraph 1 of this Section shall maintain its recognition, and thus its ability to select GNSO Council representatives, only so long as it in fact represents the interests globally of the stakeholder communities it purports to represent, and shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. No individual or entity shall be excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because of participation in another Constituency." -- Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy denise.michel(a)icann.org +1.408.429.3072 -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

PSC and Pierre Dandjinou
by Nick Ashton-Hart Nov. 3, 2008

Nov. 3, 2008

Dear Members: I had a brief conversation with Pierre earlier today. I mentioned that it had been said that At-large would like to have a more active relationship with him since he had been originally proposed by the ALAC in order to represent the interests of the individual Internet user, though it was understood that he was not meant to represent the ALAC as a liaison (or otherwise). He said he¹s very happy to make himself available during this meeting but also afterwards for dialogue with the community about the PSC¹s activities. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

September 2008 ALAC and Liaisons Performance Statistics
by At-Large Staff Nov. 3, 2008

Nov. 3, 2008

Dear All: Somewhat belatedly, we can announce the publication of the September 2008 statistics as they relate to the ALAC Rule 21 performance obligations of members and ALAC Liaisons. The information may be found at http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/alac/performance.htm -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

3 2

Fwd: Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities
by Carlton Samuels Nov. 3, 2008

Nov. 3, 2008

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> To: patrick(a)vande-walle.eu Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:22:05 -0500 Subject: Re: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities In my view, it should be clearly enunciated that ALAC is the official conduit to ICANN Board of end user interests. We must clearly state what we mean by end users; the person who uses a device to access the internet via browser, non-human devices excepted. This is not to trespass on the freedom of other constituencies in ICANN to court end users for their own sectoral interests. Carlton Samuels On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu>wrote: > I am tasked with coming up with a position on the relationship with > other entities, and particularly, the fact that ALAC should or not be > the only entity to represent individual internet users. > > The summary is as follows. There is a clearly two perceptions. Comments > welcome. > > ---------------------- > > 1. ALAC should be the sole representative. If there are different > groups, the voice of end users may actually be diluted, because these > groups may not come up with similar positions. Further, the ALAC is the > only end-user group in ICANN to be able to have positions on other > issues than just gTLD policy. Finally, the process to elect ALAC > members, though heavy and indirect, is real bottom-up. > > 2. There should be other groups representing users within the community. > The rationale is that some users may not exactly fit in the ALAC mold. > The suggestion is that the GNSO user house should have clearly > identified groups (domain name registrants, end users, academia). There > is a concern concerning the legitimacy of the representatives of these > groups and it is not clear how they will be chosen. Further and due to > the several levels of decision within the new GNSO, it is not clear if > the voice of individuals will still be heard in this context. > > > On point 12, it has been several times reminded that real logistical > issues that reduces the potential of ALAC to be more efficient in the > policy development. It is noted that other SOs should take into account > that the multilayer structure of ALAC slows down considerably the work. > > > Relationship with other ICANN entities > > 10. The ALAC is the appropriate organisational channel for the voice and > concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes > > 11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of > the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN > entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice > > 12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be > strengthened both within ALAC for the development of policy advice and > within SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >

1 0

Resumen de la primera reuni�n de ALAC en El Cairo
by jsalgueiro＠cantv.net Nov. 3, 2008

Nov. 3, 2008

Resumen de lo sucedido en la primera reunión de ALAC llevado a cabo en el marco de la 33ra reunión de ICANN celebrada en El Cairo el 2 de noviembre de 2008 Antes de empezar se debe señalar que la traducción al español es terrible, la peor en todos los meetings de ICANN a los que hayamos asistido. La reunión empezó a las 9 de la mañana. La reunión se inicio discutiendo el informe del grupo de trabajo para la revisión de ALAC. EL informe contiene reflexiones relacionadas con el informe presentado por Westlake. Se adjunta la versión en español para quienes no lo hayan visto. Posteriormente representantes del grupo de trabajo se hicieron presentes para discutir con ALAC dicho informe. Uno de los puntos mas discutidos fue la recomendación de dar a ALAC dos puestos con derecho a voto en el Board de ICNN. Si bien es interesante, el problema no es el numero de representantes sino lograr que la opinión de éstos sean consideradas. Se discutió igualmente el tema del multilingüismo y la traducción de documentos. Carlos hizo una interesante exposición en la cual se hizo claro que no se trata solamente de hacer las cosas en otros idiomas sino entender que se trata de diferentes culturas y diferentes realidades para los usuarios de las diferentes partes del mundo. Luego Colin Jackson y Andy Levin hicieron una presentación sobre el proceso de revisión independiente del Root Server System Advisory Committee. Su funcion es determinar si en comité mantiene su propósito en la estructura de ICANN. En el punto siguiente se trató el tema de las exigencias de trabajo esperado de los miembros de ALAC tomando en cuenta que se trata de trabajo voluntario, para lo cual cada uno de los miembros señaló la razón por la cual realizan este trabajo voluntario. Luego del receso para almorzar se continuó la agenda con la reunión conjunta con el SSAC. Posteriormente se discutió la posición de ALAC con respecto al informe de revisión. Los miembros se dividieron entres grupos para discutir de los siguientes puntos: Proceso de desarrollo de polìticas. Donde se puede hacer Fast track? Se recomendó la traducción como punto Priscila y la necesidad de que los grupos trabajen correctamente. Igualmente se recomendò la consulta a expertos que hay dentro del mismo ALAC Participación y responsabilidades de los miembros de ALAC y los liaisons Las conclusiones del grupo es que difícilmente se podrá mejorar la participación con las modificaciones planteadas. Los criterios cuantitativos de participación no son los mejores pero es una forma de medir la participación. Los criterios cualitativos son demasiado subjetivos para ser medidos. El grupo recomienda no modificar la regla 21 en la forma planteada en el documento presentado en Cairo Working Groups, y actividades de alcance Se recomendó solicitar facilidades a ICANN en el presupuesto para actividades de alcance. Por último Marilyn Cade y Yrjö Lansipuro presentaron un informe del proceso de trancisiòn de ICANN. Ver: http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/action-plan-revised.htm Se terminó la reunión siendo las 6 de la tarde José Ovidio Salgueiro y Carlos Aguirre Representantes de LACRALO ante ALAC -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web

1 0

[Fwd: Re: Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities]
by Jacqueline A. Morris Nov. 3, 2008

Nov. 3, 2008

Sorry This didn't go to the list, so resending JAM Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > Hi Patrick > One very important thing to note is that individual internet users are > different from individuals acting as businesses, academia, etc. My > role as an academic at work is very different from my personal > internet user life - my concerns are different. As an individual, I > may have an Internet-related business. So my concerns may align in > that role with the Business constituency, and not with the individual > internet user. So I think the definition of individual internet users > needs to be really well crafted to separate it from the concept of an > individual in other roles. And if we get that done, then there's no > discussion left as to whether we can have individuals, groups, > organisations etc as At Large members. Or individual academics as NCUC > members etc. For example, my University may not be interested in > joining NCUC as an institution (that's a lot of paperwork etc) but > they may be perfectly willing to pay for my professional membership in > NCUC if my academic interest (research etc) coincided. > Jacqueline > > Patrick Vande Walle wrote: >> I am tasked with coming up with a position on the relationship with >> other entities, and particularly, the fact that ALAC should or not be >> the only entity to represent individual internet users. >> >> The summary is as follows. There is a clearly two perceptions. Comments >> welcome. >> >> ---------------------- >> >> 1. ALAC should be the sole representative. If there are different >> groups, the voice of end users may actually be diluted, because these >> groups may not come up with similar positions. Further, the ALAC is the >> only end-user group in ICANN to be able to have positions on other >> issues than just gTLD policy. Finally, the process to elect ALAC >> members, though heavy and indirect, is real bottom-up. >> >> 2. There should be other groups representing users within the community. >> The rationale is that some users may not exactly fit in the ALAC mold. >> The suggestion is that the GNSO user house should have clearly >> identified groups (domain name registrants, end users, academia). There >> is a concern concerning the legitimacy of the representatives of these >> groups and it is not clear how they will be chosen. Further and due to >> the several levels of decision within the new GNSO, it is not clear if >> the voice of individuals will still be heard in this context. >> >> >> On point 12, it has been several times reminded that real logistical >> issues that reduces the potential of ALAC to be more efficient in the >> policy development. It is noted that other SOs should take into account >> that the multilayer structure of ALAC slows down considerably the work. >> >> >> Relationship with other ICANN entities >> >> 10. The ALAC is the appropriate organisational channel for the voice and >> concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes >> >> 11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of >> the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN >> entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice >> >> 12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be >> strengthened both within ALAC for the development of policy advice and >> within SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >> > >

1 0

Fwd: Follow-up on GNSO Restructuring/Improvements
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 3, 2008

Nov. 3, 2008

I am way behind on my e-mail, and I am not sure if this has already been relayed to the ALAC. I call your attention specifically to the first item. We have previously taken a strong position that the user perspective should be represented in some way through the Non-Commercial Users Stakeholders Group on the GNSO. The Interim report from the BGC ALAC Review Working Group has now put forward a strong position that individual users should NOT be represented on the GNSO. It is unclear to me exactly what the boundaries are between a group that represents the interest of users, and a group representing users. I think that we will need to make sure we discuss this in Cairo. Alan >Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:26:42 -0700 >From: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> >Subject: [liaison6c] Re: Follow-up on GNSO Restructuring/Improvements > >Dear Community Members: > >1) Individual Users -- As previously indicated, the ICANN Board has >asked for additional community input on the appropriate role and >representation of individual Internet users in the GNSO. To further >encourage discussion and comment, Staff opened a public comment forum >to solicit online input, and provided a document summarizing the >issues involved. Please see ><http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-users>. The forum >closes on 28 November 2008. > >2) Board Seat Elections -- As noted previously, Board members also >requested additional community input before making final decisions on >the methodology for GNSO elections of Board Seats #13 and #14. Please >see the attached background document for more information. Comments >are requested by 27 November 2008. > >3) Stakeholder Groups -- Attached is a draft template for new >Stakeholder Groups. Since the establishment of these Stakeholder >Groups is a new endeavor and requires Board approval, Staff is >offering a draft template as a starting point for discussion. > >4) Constituency Renewal -- Staff is working on a draft template to >assist with the development of a streamlined process that will assist >with the Board's timely recognition and approval of existing >constituencies. It will be emailed shortly to facilitate constituency >consideration of how this process should be done. > >Please don't hesitate to email me/policy-staff(a)icann.org with any questions. > >Regards, >Denise > > >-- >Denise Michel >ICANN VP, Policy > >On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Denise Michel ><denise.michel(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Dear Community Members: > > > > In advance of the 16 Oct. GNSO Council > meeting, I wanted to provide everyone > > with the follow-up action items from the Board's most recent draft GNSO > > Restructuring Resolution (see draft resolution below and at > > <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-01oct08.htm>). I'd be happy > > to elaborate on these during the Council call, or feel free to email > > questions to <policy-staff(a)icann.org>. > > > > 1) COUNCIL CHAIR -- The Board adopted the WG-GCR recommendation that the > > GNSO Council Chair be elected by a vote of 60% of both voting houses and > > each voting house has the flexibility to create a process for selecting its > > own Vice Chair. To address questions on whether a "back-up" process was > > needed in the event that a vote did not yield a Chair, the Board decided to > > ask the Council to consider this matter. "The Board directs the Council to > > develop a process for subsequent balloting, > if needed, until a Council Chair > > is duly elected. This process should be developed before the first Chair > > election of the newly structured Council." > > > > *ACTION: As the Council moves forward with GNSO Improvements > > implementation, this should be addressed and provided to the Board. > > > > 2) BOARD SEATS -- "The Board and General Counsel have outstanding questions > > about the WG-GCR recommendations regarding Board seat elections and directs > > Staff to share these with the community and seek additional input." > > > > *ACTION: Staff will post outstanding questions and solicit input shortly. > > > > 3) VOTING THRESHOLDS -- The Board adopted all voting thresholds proposed by > > the WG-GCR Report. Concerns that implementation of GNSO Improvements (e.g. > > new PDP, working group model, etc) might necessitate additions to, or > > clarifications of, thresholds, the Board requested that "the GNSO develop > > any additional voting thresholds or > categories that may be needed as part of > > its proposed GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan to be submitted to the > > Board for approval." (Note: this draft wording likely will be changed to > > avoid confusion; the Board expects to receive an overall plan for > > implementing restructuring; this is separate from the GNSO's effort to > > create a structure of committees and teams to start the GNSO Improvements > > implementation work.) > > > > *ACTION: As the Council moves forward with GNSO Improvements > > implementation, this should be addressed and, if changes or additions are > > deemed necessary, they should be provided to the Board. > > > > 4) NEW/EXISTING CONSTITUENCIES -- The Board acknowledged Staff development > > of a "Notice of Intent" document for potential new constituencies (*see > > attached) and directed Staff "to develop a formal petition and charter > > template that will assist applicants in satisfying the formative criteria > > (consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's evaluation of > > petitions to form new constituencies. Staff also is directed to work with > > the existing GNSO constituencies to design > and develop a streamlined process > > along with appropriate mechanisms that will assist with the Board's timely > > recognition and approval of existing constituencies". > > > > *ACTION: Attached is a "Notice of Intent" to solicit and publicly share > > information on entities interested in forming > new constituencies, along with > > a proposed petition and charter template. Staff would appreciate receiving > > any input you may have by 28 Oct. Staff also is developing for your > > consideration a draft template for > constituencies to use to enable the Board > > to "renew" constituencies. Since this is a new endeavor, Staff is offering > > a draft as a starting point for discussion. Staff will collect and share > > input with the community during the Cairo ICANN meeting. > > > > 5) STAKEHOLDER GROUPS The Board "reinforced its support for the following > > principles pertaining to the formation of the new Stakeholder Groups, and > > requests that all constituency members and other relevant parties comply > > with the principles included in the BGC Working Group's GNSO Improvements > > Report approved by the Board in establishing the newly formed structures, > > including: the need to better represent the wide variety of groups and > > individuals that compose the global ICANN > community, in a structure that can > > change more easily with the gTLD environment and stakeholders; and the > > inclusion of new actors/participants, where > applicable, and the expansion of > > constituencies within Stakeholder Groups, where applicable." Further, Staff > > was directed to work with the GNSO community to develop "a set of > > streamlined processes (along with appropriate templates, tools, or other > > mechanisms) that will assist in the formation of these new Stakeholder > > Groups and also facilitate the Board's subsequent review and approval of > > those structures." The Board directed that plans for each of the four new > > Stakeholder Groups be submitted to the Board for consideration at the ICANN > > Mexico City Board meeting, and the plans "must be reviewed and approved by > > the Board before a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in June 2009. > > The Board will consider the need for interim > action to fill Council seats in > > the event that it finds any Stakeholder Group plans to be deficient or > > delayed." > > > > *ACTION: Staff will provide some initial draft material shortly to support > > community consideration and discussion. > > > > 6) ROLE/REPRESENTATION OF USERS The Board requested additional community > > "dialogue and input on the appropriate role > and representation of individual > > Internet users, including individual commercial and non-commercial Internet > > users, in the GNSO. Input from the GNSO, the ALAC and At-Large community, > > and any relevant applicants for new constituencies, would be particularly > > helpful and should address the inclusion of > registrants and individual users > > in the GNSO in a manner that compliments the ALAC and its supporting > > structures, and ensures that registrants' and individual Internet users' > > gTLD interests are effectively represented within the GNSO." > > > > *ACTION: Staff will post a public comment solicitation and will provide > > background information to encourage community > consideration and input to the > > Board. > > > > 7) IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE The Board amended its previous implementation > > timetable and directs that the transition to a new bicameral GNSO Council > > voting structure take place over a phased implementation schedule that > > begins immediately and ends in June 2009 with the seating of the new > > Council. The implementation phases will be as follows: > > > > -Phase 1 - GNSO Council restructuring implementation plan submitted in > > advance of the December 2008 Board Meeting; > > > > - Phase 2 - Existing Constituencies submit confirmation documents to the > > Board for review in advance of the February 2009 Board Meeting; > > > > - Phase 3 - Stakeholder Groups submit formal plans for Board approval for > > consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting; and > > > > - Phase 4 - Stakeholder Groups with plans approved by the Board select > > Council representatives, and the newly structured GNSO Council is seated > > by the June 2009 Asia-Pacific ICANN Meeting. > > > > *ACTION Staff will assist the GNSO in developing a restructuring > > implementation plan that the Board expects to receive later this year. > > > > =================== > > > > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Membership and Leadership Selection:) > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.06), as recommended by the WG-GCR, the Board > > authorizes a third Council-level non-voting Nominating Committee > > Appointee to serve on the Council whose presence could preserve an > > independent aspect on the Council and could provide useful management > > support as the Council moves toward a working group management function. > > > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.07), the Board authorizes the GNSO Council > > to elect a Chair consistent with the recommendation of the WG-GCR - that > > the GNSO Chair be elected by a vote of 60% of both voting houses and > > each voting house has the flexibility to create a process for selecting > > its own Vice Chair. The Board directs the Council to develop a process > > for subsequent balloting, if needed, until a Council Chair is duly > > elected. This process should be developed before the first Chair > > election of the newly structured Council. > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.08), the Board and General Counsel have > > outstanding questions about the WG-GCR recommendations regarding Board > > seat elections and directs Staff to share these with the community and > > seek additional input. > > > > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Operational/Voting Considerations:) > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.09), the Board adopts all voting thresholds > > proposed in the WG-GCR Report. The Board requests that the GNSO develop > > any additional voting thresholds or categories that may be needed as > > part of its proposed GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan to be > > submitted to the Board for approval. > > > > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Stakeholder and Constituency Organizational > > Concerns:) > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.10), the Board acknowledges Staff's > > development of the "Notice of Intent" documentation for potential new > > constituencies and directs Staff to develop a formal petition and > > charter template that will assist applicants in satisfying the formative > > criteria (consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's > > evaluation of petitions to form new constituencies. Staff also is > > directed to work with the existing GNSO constituencies to design and > > develop a streamlined process along with appropriate mechanisms that > > will assist with the Board's timely recognition and approval of existing > > constituencies. > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.11), the Board reinforces its support for > > the following principles pertaining to the formation of the new > > Stakeholder Groups, and requests that all constituency members and other > > relevant parties comply with the principles included in the BGC Working > > Group's GNSO Improvements Report approved by the Board in establishing > > the newly formed structures, including: > > > > - The need to better represent the wide variety of groups and > > individuals that compose the global ICANN community, in a structure that > > can change more easily with the gTLD environment and stakeholders. > > > > - The inclusion of new actors/participants, where applicable, and the > > expansion of constituencies within Stakeholder Groups, where applicable. > > > > > > It is, further Resolved (2008.10.01.12), that the Board further directs > > Staff to work with existing constituencies to develop a set of > > streamlined processes (along with appropriate templates, tools, or other > > mechanisms) that will assist in the formation of these new Stakeholder > > Groups and also facilitate the Board's subsequent review and approval of > > those structures. > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.13), the Board directs that plans for each > > of the four new Stakeholder Groups, that are consistent with the above > > principles, be submitted to the Board for consideration at the ICANN > > Mexico City Board meeting. The plans must be reviewed and approved by > > the Board before a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in June 2009. > > The Board will consider the need for interim action to fill Council > > seats in the event that it finds any Stakeholder Group plans to be > > deficient or delayed. > > > > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (The Role of Individual Internet Users in the > > GNSO:) > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.14), The Board requests additional community > > dialogue and input on the appropriate role and representation of > > individual Internet users, including individual commercial and > > non-commercial Internet users, in the GNSO. Input from the GNSO, the > > ALAC and At-Large community, and any relevant applicants for new > > constituencies, would be particularly helpful and should address the > > inclusion of registrants and individual users in the GNSO in a manner > > that compliments the ALAC and its supporting structures, and ensures > > that registrants' and individual Internet users' gTLD interests are > > effectively represented within the GNSO. > > > > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Implementation Timing:) > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.15), the Board amends its previous > > implementation timetable and directs that the transition to a new > > bicameral GNSO Council voting structure take place over a phased > > implementation schedule that begins immediately and ends in June 2009 > > with the seating of the new Council. The implementation phases will be > > as follows: > > > > Phase 1 - GNSO Council restructuring implementation plan submitted in > > advance of the December 2008 Board Meeting; > > > > Phase 2 - Existing Constituencies submit confirmation documents to the > > Board for review in advance of the February 2009 Board Meeting; > > > > Phase 3 - Stakeholder Groups submit formal plans for Board approval for > > consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting; and > > > > Phase 4 - Stakeholder Groups with plans approved by the Board select > > Council representatives, and the newly structured GNSO Council is seated > > by the June 2009 Asia-Pacific ICANN Meeting. > > > > > > > > > >Content-type: application/msword; name="DRAFT Stakeholder Template.doc" >Content-disposition: attachment; filename="DRAFT Stakeholder Template.doc" >X-Attachment-Id: f_fmuzlnus2 > >Content-type: application/msword; > name="REQUEST FOR GNSO COMMUNITY INPUT ON > BOARD ELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS FROM" > WG-GCR.doc" >Content-disposition: attachment; > filename="REQUEST FOR GNSO COMMUNITY INPUT ON > BOARD ELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS" > FROM WG-GCR.doc" >X-Attachment-Id: f_fmv196yu3

3 2