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. There's a lot to respond to in quite a few messages, busy day today and tomorrow likely worse, sorry I haven't time. So just this:
Beau, as I understand it, the Board will accept or reject presumably based on the their own perspective and the input received from the public comments. The only opportunity for change is if the Board rejects. If they accept, it is (until a change is required or forced) cast in concrete.
I suspect you are right, but this is something to check. 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? Two things: if the process is open to further comment --I hope it is-- then seeking to make modifications to the non-commercial proposals would be a good option. I suggest we only address the NCUC proposal, the other has little support. If the process is closed as you suggest, as ALAC can provide advice to the board as it wishes, can't we anyway suggest whatever we think best? In both situations we can say there should be a further review process and specify areas of the NCUC proposal that need to be resolved. 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. And ICANN has to begin supporting the outreach. It's unrealistic to think the NCUC alone could find members from "educational, research, and philanthropic organizations, foundations, think tanks, members of academia, individual registrant groups and other noncommercial organizations etc". It's managed a few, but some of these are groups ICANN itself has had great difficulty engaging with. I know some NCUC members have tried, I've done a bit myself with no luck. Outreach of this kind needs ICANN's support. Thanks, Adam
Alan
At 15/04/2009 07:26 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
I feel like I have something of a conflict of interest, since I have a constituency proposal before the community for consumers. I can go as far as to say I have some concerns with both charters that I hope will be ironed out during the public comment and review process.
________________________________________