- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Revised RAA amendment/motion
by Alan Greenberg March 1, 2009

March 1, 2009

As you may remember, RAA amendment package that has been discussed needed to be approved by a 66% majority of the GNSO to allow the Board to put the changes in place. For a variety of reasons, when the GNSO voted on this, it did not receive a sufficient majority. There has been a discussion of various next-step motions. The following motion has just been circulated to the GNSO Council. As you will see, it is a cooperative effort of several constituencies. You will notice that a Registrant Bill of Rights, with a tight time-line, has a prominent place in this proposal, and the ALAC is explicitly included in the process. Your comments are welcome before the Wednesday morning GNSO meeting when it will be discussed, and potentially voted on. Alan >Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:43:04 -0700 >From: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> >Subject: [council] Revised RAA amendment/motion >To: council(a)gnso.icann.org >Cc: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> > >This is the revised amendment/motion drafted by a drafting team >comprised of representatives from the NCUC, IPC, and RrC. We tried to >address most of the concerns that have been raised. Let us know your >thoughts. > >Whereas, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been >amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative >process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment >periods and consultations; > >Whereas, the proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance >and enforcement tools for ICANN; The Council wishes to approve the set >of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board >may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as >possible; and > >Whereas, > >The Council would like to proceed on the drafting of a charter >identifying registrant rights that registrars would be obliged to link >to, as contemplated in the set of amendments; > >The Council would like a specific process and timeline to move forward >with additional potential amendments to the RAA; and > >The Registrar Constituency is supportive of these efforts and is willing >to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps. > >Resolved: > >The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in >http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p… > >and recommends to the Board that they be adopted at its meeting of March >6, 2009; > >Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, >representatives from the GNSO community and the ALAC shall be identified >to participate in drafting a registrant rights charter, as contemplated >by the amendments and the current GNSO Council discussions, with support >from ICANN staff. A draft charter shall be completed no later then July >31; and > >Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, the GNSO >Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the amendments further and >identify those that the community believes could be further revised >through PDP processes or through additional changes to the RAA that may >not fall within scope of a formal PDP process. The Drafting Team should >endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later >then July 31, 2009. > > >Tim

3 5

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Revised RAA amendment/motion
by Brendler, Beau March 1, 2009

March 1, 2009

Not all of this is bad news. Note item 3.16, page 14... Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including a valid email and mailing address. Glad to see this here. I think the registrars at minimum should be required to give as much information about themselves as registrants. That said, can we get more specific information in here: Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including location of corporate headquarters, a valid email staffed for responses and a mailing address. Note that under 4.2, Topics for New and Revised Specifications and Policies, there is a reference to: 4.2.5, prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars... Notice, also, 5.3, and following sections, pertaining to termination of agreement by ICANN, in which provisions are described for terminating contracts with registrars, including conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction of a felony or other serious offense....read on through item 5.3.7 Note that 5.7 appears to limit fines for bad behavior, however. The no third party beneficiaries clause is 5.10. ________________________________________ From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger [dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 4:12 PM To: Alan Greenberg; At-Large Worldwide Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Revised RAA amendment/motion All, This is an attempt on the part of the registrars to push through a complete package with several objectionable elements. They seek to toss you a bone in order to get your support. Let's be honest about it -- the "no third-party beneficiaries clause" in the RAA makes it clear that there are no registrant rights. You are being sold damaged goods. --- On Sun, 3/1/09, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm> wrote: > From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm> > Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Revised RAA amendment/motion > To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Cc: "ALAC Working List" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 4:07 PM > Alan: > Congrats for hanging in there with this matter. > > If memory serves, what is proposed here has less elements - > at least in the > details where the devil resides - than originally posed but > probably the > most one could reasonably expect; Beau can confirm here. > > Giving ALAC a 2nd crack at participating in developing a > Registrant Bill of > Rights is definitely in the At-Large best interests and > gives some level of > assurance that other issues not now included may still be > negotiated and > adopted. > > I would recommend ALAC go with this. > > Carlton > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > > > As you may remember, RAA amendment package that has > been discussed needed > > to be approved by a 66% majority of the GNSO to allow > the Board to put the > > changes in place. > > > > For a variety of reasons, when the GNSO voted on this, > it did not receive a > > sufficient majority. There has been a discussion of > various next-step > > motions. The following motion has just been circulated > to the GNSO Council. > > As you will see, it is a cooperative effort of several > constituencies. > > > > You will notice that a Registrant Bill of Rights, with > a tight time-line, > > has a prominent place in this proposal, and the ALAC > is explicitly included > > in the process. > > > > Your comments are welcome before the Wednesday morning > GNSO meeting when it > > will be discussed, and potentially voted on. > > > > Alan > > > > Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:43:04 -0700 > >> From: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> > >> Subject: [council] Revised RAA amendment/motion > >> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > >> Cc: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> > >> > >> This is the revised amendment/motion drafted by a > drafting team > >> comprised of representatives from the NCUC, IPC, > and RrC. We tried to > >> address most of the concerns that have been > raised. Let us know your > >> thoughts. > >> > >> Whereas, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement > (RAA) has not been > >> amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a > lengthy consultative > >> process related to amending the RAA, including > several public comment > >> periods and consultations; > >> > >> Whereas, the proposed changes to the RAA include > important compliance > >> and enforcement tools for ICANN; The Council > wishes to approve the set > >> of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so > that the ICANN Board > >> may review them, and if approved then implement > them as quickly as > >> possible; and > >> > >> Whereas, > >> > >> The Council would like to proceed on the drafting > of a charter > >> identifying registrant rights that registrars > would be obliged to link > >> to, as contemplated in the set of amendments; > >> > >> The Council would like a specific process and > timeline to move forward > >> with additional potential amendments to the RAA; > and > >> > >> The Registrar Constituency is supportive of these > efforts and is willing > >> to participate on a good faith basis on > anticipated next steps. > >> > >> Resolved: > >> > >> The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as > documented in > >> > >> > http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p… > >> > >> and recommends to the Board that they be adopted > at its meeting of March > >> 6, 2009; > >> > >> Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of > amendments, > >> representatives from the GNSO community and the > ALAC shall be identified > >> to participate in drafting a registrant rights > charter, as contemplated > >> by the amendments and the current GNSO Council > discussions, with support > >> from ICANN staff. A draft charter shall be > completed no later then July > >> 31; and > >> > >> Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of > amendments, the GNSO > >> Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss the > amendments further and > >> identify those that the community believes could > be further revised > >> through PDP processes or through additional > changes to the RAA that may > >> not fall within scope of a formal PDP process. The > Drafting Team should > >> endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and > ICANN staff no later > >> then July 31, 2009. > >> > >> > >> Tim > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
by Evan Leibovitch Feb. 25, 2009

Feb. 25, 2009

Karl Auerbach wrote: > There is much history here - the root server operators, or rather the > operators of the primary system of root servers (there are other > systems of root servers) have never pledged allegiance to ICANN. > Rather they run their systems as their own systems, set their own > rules, adopt their own procedures. > > In a way this has been good because those folks who are doing this > have done a spectacular job. I appreciate the history but am trying to understand how it guides the present situation. Westlake wants ICANN (and its various constituencies) far more deeply involved in the root servers -- yet your history suggests that their independence has served RSAC well. It is reasonable than an ICANN that would be involved with TLDs and IPV6 would also have a hand in the root servers. But based on what you and others have said, it seems like Westlake is recommending substantial repair to something that isn't broken. Furthermore, ICANN -- including ALAC -- have little to teach RSAC about transparency and accountability. > But on the other hand, there needs to be some formality of obligation. > There needs to be some constraint that keeps the root server operators > from giving into financial pressures and doing bad things. So... what is the useful recommendation moving forward? Is the status quo not a viable option, considering the difficulty with which any worthy changes would be implemented? Given to their own processes, Karl describes that, when confronted with challenges, the RSAC has tended to do the right thing. Is that only by chance? Or perhaps... in their opacity they have developed a reasonable process for good judgement. Indeed, based on what's been said maybe RSAC has something to teach ICANN as well. - Evan

2 1

Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
by Patrick Vande Walle Feb. 25, 2009

Feb. 25, 2009

http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/rssac/ The Westlake report on RSSAC has just been published. It is quite hard, in that it points out that RSSAC is essentially unaccountable to the ICANN community, and that it does not pro-actively advise on root server related issues, or potential ones. Among the recommendations are a request that RSSAC holds its meetings together with ICANN ones, and to enlarge the AC to include representatives from ASO, GNSO, ccNSO, GAC and ALAC. Obviously, the recommendations should be discussed, but the gist of the report is right on target. Patrick

1 0

Fwd: Board request for Report on User Involvement in the GNSO
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 20, 2009

Feb. 20, 2009

>To: Peter Dengate Thrush <peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Board request for Report on User Involvement in the GNSO >Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, Denise Michel ><denise.michel(a)icann.org>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr ><langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se>, At-Large Staff ><staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > >Dear Peter, > >On 11 December 2008, the Board of Directors requested a report on >the involvement of users in the GNSO, initially to be delivered by >24 January 2009, later extended to 20 February 2009. > >As per the Board request, the GNSO and ALAC facilitated the >convening of a working group with participants from the >ALAC/At-Large, GNSO and forming constituency communities. As the >ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, I am pleased to deliver this report on >behalf of the working group. > >My understanding is that the Chairs of both the ALAC and the GNSO >will request that their respective groups ratify this report before >or during the Mexico City meeting. > >Although a number of the participants entered into this working >group with some trepidation, it functioned remarkably well, all the >more so given the tight timeline. > >With warm regards, Alan Greenberg

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write
by carlos aguirre Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

Alan, thank`s again. the idea is to discuss this, with properly and enough time. I think is needed a special meeting for that, because ROP are a main rules wich direct ALAC life, and we do not try so fast. but, obviously I will respect the vote of mayority. Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:02:18 -0500 To: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org From: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca Subject: RE: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write Carlos, can I ask why you are asking to stop the RoP re-write, instead of simply deferring the re-write of the ExCom section? The intent to do a re-write preceded the ExCom decision, and (in some opinions) needs to be done in any case. Alan At 19/02/2009 02:08 PM, carlos aguirre wrote: Alan: thank you for your advice. Yes, you have a point , my motion is definitly to stop the re-write the ROP, because we don´t know, because we didn`t vote FIRST if we want an Ex Com, because we don´t know, what exactly means, and what Ex Com will do, and what will be their obligations and faculties. So my motion is : stop re-write the ROP and, ask and vote if Ex Com is needed. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:06:48 -0500 To: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org From: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca Subject: RE: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write Carlos, at this point, the ALAC has voted for the creation and in that motion, instructed that more details rules be created. As Rapporteur, I am trying to follow those instructions. I also stated in my work plan that an overall RoP re-write was in my plan, and I had no objections raised to that. So I am trying to do that job. I note that the ExCom issue is a SMALL part of the overall RoP. If you feel that the ALAC should take some other immediate action (either to stop the re-write or abolish the ExCom with details on exactly what that means), I suggest that as an ALAC member, you make a motion to that effect. Alan At 19/02/2009 07:04 AM, carlos aguirre wrote: Dear Alan. Before talk about ROP changes, is neccessary as I said in last november, to decide first if Ex Com is a good idea. I think particularly to impose "de facto" a new body, with only a few ALAC members deciding for all of us, and in charge to decide what issues are urgent or important is not a democratic way to stablish something like that. But, I repeat, first of all is not legaly, because are not into ROP, and because was not voted the necessity of it creation. my best Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:57:53 -0500 > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > From: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > Subject: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write > > We are clearly not going to have any time to discuss this as a group > in Mexico City, but I would like to ask all of you to think about > what you believe needs to be changed in any way. We have already > identified: Rules associated with the ExCom and Performance > Guidelines, but input on those is certainly welcome. > > I am also interested in hearing how detailed and exhaustive you > believe the RoP should be. > > Input is welcome via e-mail (privately or to the list) and in person > while in Mexico City. > > You can find the current version ALAC/2007/1/1.Rev10 in English > French and Spanish at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure. > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ¿Aburrido? Ingresá ya y divertite como nunca en MSN Juegos. MSN Juegos Descargá GRATIS el poder del nuevo Internet Explorer 7. Internet Explorer 7 _________________________________________________________________ Descargá GRATIS el poder del nuevo Internet Explorer 7. http://optimized.msn.com/Default.aspx?mkt=es-ar

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write
by carlos aguirre Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

Alan: thank you for your advice. Yes, you have a point , my motion is definitly to stop the re-write the ROP, because we don´t know, because we didn`t vote FIRST if we want an Ex Com, because we don´t know, what exactly means, and what Ex Com will do, and what will be their obligations and faculties. So my motion is : stop re-write the ROP and, ask and vote if Ex Com is needed. Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:06:48 -0500 To: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org From: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca Subject: RE: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write Carlos, at this point, the ALAC has voted for the creation and in that motion, instructed that more details rules be created. As Rapporteur, I am trying to follow those instructions. I also stated in my work plan that an overall RoP re-write was in my plan, and I had no objections raised to that. So I am trying to do that job. I note that the ExCom issue is a SMALL part of the overall RoP. If you feel that the ALAC should take some other immediate action (either to stop the re-write or abolish the ExCom with details on exactly what that means), I suggest that as an ALAC member, you make a motion to that effect. Alan At 19/02/2009 07:04 AM, carlos aguirre wrote: Dear Alan. Before talk about ROP changes, is neccessary as I said in last november, to decide first if Ex Com is a good idea. I think particularly to impose "de facto" a new body, with only a few ALAC members deciding for all of us, and in charge to decide what issues are urgent or important is not a democratic way to stablish something like that. But, I repeat, first of all is not legaly, because are not into ROP, and because was not voted the necessity of it creation. my best Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:57:53 -0500 > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > From: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > Subject: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write > > We are clearly not going to have any time to discuss this as a group > in Mexico City, but I would like to ask all of you to think about > what you believe needs to be changed in any way. We have already > identified: Rules associated with the ExCom and Performance > Guidelines, but input on those is certainly welcome. > > I am also interested in hearing how detailed and exhaustive you > believe the RoP should be. > > Input is welcome via e-mail (privately or to the list) and in person > while in Mexico City. > > You can find the current version ALAC/2007/1/1.Rev10 in English > French and Spanish at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure. > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ¿Aburrido? Ingresá ya y divertite como nunca en MSN Juegos. MSN Juegos _________________________________________________________________ Descargá GRATIS el poder del nuevo Internet Explorer 7. http://optimized.msn.com/Default.aspx?mkt=es-ar

3 2

Link to MP3 Added - WHOIS Studies
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

The GNSO was asked to make recommendations on what studies could or should be done to ultimately allow some progress on the Whois issue. Public input was requested on the types of studies that could be done, and this list was merged with the GAC request to the Board on Whois studies. We are now at the stage where GNSO constituencies have prioritized the various studies (or groups of studies) so that ICANN staff can begin to evaluate the feasibility and cost of such studies. The GNSO is scheduled to hold a vote on the issue in Mexico City. Although not a formal Constituency, the ALAC was asked to rate prioritize the studies also. A working group was convened. The volunteers were Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Beau Brendler, Carlton Samuels, Danny Younger, Seith Reiss, Sylvia Caras and Gareth Shearman. Beau volunteered to evaluate the studies from a user and consumer point of view. Most of the WG participants felt that we should give the studies ratings, although there view was expressed by some that we should follow the RrC and NCUC example (see below). The attached spreadsheet gives the various studies/groups, a brief description or hypothesis (some less brief than others), the priority rating that Beau assigned and the priorities of the GNSO constituencies. Note that two Constituencies, the Registrar and Non-Commercial Users, rated all studies at zero. For the Registrars, the reasons were: "The RrC continues to maintain that no studies should be pursued. We have over six years of history on this topic. It was clear through those years that the stakeholder groups were entrenched in their views and positions and there is no evidence or any other indication that any of these studies will change that." The NCUC also felt that there was no point in any further studies. Following the individual ratings are the averages. I have calculated the averages both before and after the ALAC input, and also both including and excluding the RrC and NCUC. By comparing the before and after ALAC averages, you can see how our input will impact the process. By excluding the RrC and NCUC, we can see how our priorities compared to those set by the other groups that went through the exercise. On the average, I have highlighted those with an average of greater than 2.5 (studies were given ratings from 0 to 5). Without the ALAC, 6 studies were above the threshold and are scheduled to be recommended for further ICANN staff action. With the ALAC ratings, two additional studies are above the threshold. If the threshold is raised just a bit, we would have no change in the overall outcome (even though a few of our ratings are quite different from the others that gave non-zero ratings). I understand that this is not a particularly understandable table, but I am at a loss as to how to make it easier without making it much larger. For those who want to understand more about what the studies are looking at, see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-c…. The current plan from the WG is to submit this to the GNSO for inclusion in their deliberations. I am not sure if Cheryl is planning to schedule a formal ALAC vote on this, but will leave that up to her. Beau did review his rationale for the priorities during the last conference call, and the MP3 recording is pointed to at https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?05_february_2009. If someone has specific questions, I am sure he will try to answer them. Alan

1 0

Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

We are clearly not going to have any time to discuss this as a group in Mexico City, but I would like to ask all of you to think about what you believe needs to be changed in any way. We have already identified: Rules associated with the ExCom and Performance Guidelines, but input on those is certainly welcome. I am also interested in hearing how detailed and exhaustive you believe the RoP should be. Input is welcome via e-mail (privately or to the list) and in person while in Mexico City. You can find the current version ALAC/2007/1/1.Rev10 in English French and Spanish at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure. Alan

5 6

Draft report to Board on User Involvement in the GNSO
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

As you are no doubt aware, the Board of Directors asked the At-Large and GNSO Communities to jointly develop a set of recommendations on the subject of individual user involvement in the GNSO. We asked for a deadline extension to Friday, Feb. 20th, and that was granted by the Board. The draft statement is attached. The working group members were: GNSO: James Bladel, Avri Doria, William Drake, Robin Gross, Zahid Jamil, Milton Mueller, Mary Wong ALAC: Carlos Aguirre, Sébastien Bachollet, Beau Brendler, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Landon-Orr, Adam Peake, Vanda Scartezini, Baudouin Schombe, Danny Younger (Danny Younger has chosen to disassociate himself from this Statement and the recommendations therein) Although the report is still open for correcting typographical and similar errors or for the addition of minority comments by WG members, it is essentially completed. I must say that when I entered into this process, I did not know if we could indeed get a statement that would be endorsed by such a wide variety of participants. For that reason, I am quite pleased with this outcome and commend all of the WG members for their hard work. Alan

1 0