I have3 been in business and ICANN conference calls all day, and am just now reading these many posts. I will try to excerpt the relevant thoughts and address them all in one mail. I must say it is delightful to actually see a conversation going on here! Alan At 16/04/2009 01:55 AM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
I also feel sorry for the individuals that will be joining the NCSG that they will be limited to deal with the narrow topic of gTLD policy,...
That is why we have repeatedly advocated both clear descriptions of the GNSO and its parts, and outreach - so that there is no misunderstanding of what this group will be doing.
I would also suggest that as many ALSes and At-Large folks as possible join the new NCSG. Call it positive entryism, if you like. Hopefully, we could save some energy and resources by building larges bridges between both groups in developing statements in the gTLD context.
This kind of statement scares me for two reasons. First, we have for many months, in many both formal and informal settings, that the ALAC does not expect or support massive ALS membership in the NCSG or one of its Constituencies. It is the concept of such a thing happening that has prompted many members of the community and Board members to say that there should be no user representation on the GNSO, because to do so will confuse the community about where users are represented, and in light of the recommendation that At-Large have voting Board members, it would give these people two ways to elect Board members - a real no-no. Secondly, the last thing the GNSO needs is for organizations to join who are not committed to actually working on gTLD policy. =========== At 16/04/2009 06:59 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
Do we have separate gTLD Registrar constituency, a ccTLD Registrar constituency and an IDN Registrar constituency within ICANN or one single constituency for Registrars ?
ccTLD registrars do not come into this discussion, because they do not necessarily have contracts with ICANN, and if they did, it would be under the auspices of the ccNSO. An IDN Registrar Constituency? One does not exist today, but it is quite possible that one could form and be part of the Registrar Stakeholders Group under the reformed GNSO. =========== At 16/04/2009 08:03 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Does nobody else but me have a deep-rooted objection to the whole concept of the contracted parties having a significant say in GNSO policy? Why is ALAC just lying down dead in refusing to challenge this core principle, preferring instead to validate the in-fighting over how to slice up the scraps left to represent the non-contracted (ie, the billions of the rest of us)?
The *DUTY* of ALAC is to advise ICANN on the public interest.... and in the matter of the GNSO restructure it has, at least to these eyes, utterly shirked this duty. We should be telling the Board that (or at least driving debate over whether) the core doctrine of "fairness" between contracted and non-contracted parties is WRONG. As an AC we have the ability -- and the responsibility -- to confront bad core assumptions. Instead I see ALAC taking the easy way out, being satisfied with trying to clean up the damage caused by those bad assumptions rather than challenging the assumptions themselves.
A year ago, the ALAC supported the three-stakeholder group suggested by the business constituencies. This model would have given Registrars combined with registries 28-33% of GNSO Council votes and voices. It was not adopted. I don't find that there is any merit in continuing to fight that battle. When the GNSO is next reviewed, we could of course raise the issue again. But what is to be gained by putting energy into this now? =========== At 16/04/2009 09:16 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
I guess the time is passed now, but, to be frank, I also have a political problem. My organization would be concerned about aligning itself with CP80. Meanwhile, "civil society" is being organized to make public comments in favor of the NCUC charter, which I find problematic because of its voting system, because I don't think it offers much to newcomers, and because it's not clear how well minority viewpoints would be represented. If there's no "hammering out" phase, then I guess I'm either left to wait and see, or to withdraw the consumer constituency petition (or withdraw from the constituency and let Holly carry it on).
It is now in the hands of the Board to decide whether to accept or reject the proposals. If they reject, as a Constituency in formation, you will be in the position to demand a seat at the table to help hammer out a charter that does "offer much to newcomers". No need to withdraw yet. =========== At 16/04/2009 09:16 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
Alan: thanks for sending a comment <http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00025.html>. I think it's fair, appreciate your efforts on all our behalf.
Thank you.
If I am reading the commercial stakeholder's charter correctly <http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/commercial-sg-transitional-charter-28f...> (btw: no mention of individuals, and we know some of the constituencies give individuals no rights other than to observe), then it is not complete, the last item there states "The Final Charter Process The process to develop a Final Charter shall consider a number of additional matters." What's going on here? Doesn't this indicate there's an opportunity to do more work?
What's going on here is that the CSG decided that they could not address the long-term situation at the moment, and decided on a very clean and simple interim charter. This has been suggested for the NCSG, but it was categorically rejected. We suggested it again in the fourth bullet of the statement that I submitted yesterday on behalf of the ALAC (to be ratified, or not, on the 28th).
If we can take this route of extra comment, then let's be specific with our questions to the NCUC (example: verification of individuals, potential for capture by individuals... I know there's much more, but this is pretty specific and addressable.) Let's go through the NCUC proposal and say where each of us have problems and then we can either seek the facilitated discussion that was promised. Or perhaps better, a few of us start a discussion with Mary Wong, Bill Drake, Robin Gross etc and work through things ourselves.
If the Board rejects both proposals, then I assume that this is exactly what will happen. Hopefully with Beau's new almost-Constituency at the table formally. =========== At 16/04/2009 10:25 AM, carlos aguirre wrote:
I assume my fault part of this, but we have an actively, and -de facto- ExCom which they should have seen this before.
Both ExCom people and others have been addressing this for a long time now. We just have not been successful. =========== At 16/04/2009 11:02 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
Trying to explain that charter to consumer groups, for me, is a non-starter.
A good point that has not been raised before! ===========