Fwd: [ga] Reminder: Submit comments to "The Role of Individual Internet Usersin the GNSO"
Question: do we plan to submit comments to this document, in addition to what we already did in the framework of the GNSO improvement effort ? If so, how are we going to proceed with only 11 days left ? This question aside, I still issues on the process. I do not remember we were explicitly asked to provide comments. Are we supposed to monitor each and every mailing list to find out what is expected from us ? And again, 3O days is too short for the At-Large community to respond to such requests. Patrick Vande Walle -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ga] Reminder: Submit comments to "The Role of Individual Internet Usersin the GNSO" Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:56:57 -0800 From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> To: "mail=ga@gnso.icann.org" <ga@gnso.icann.org> [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200811.html#gnso-users The Role of Individual Internet Users in the GNSO Open: 28 Oct 08 Closed: 28 Nov 08 Explanation: The ICANN Board has asked for additional community input on the appropriate role and representation of individual commercial and non-commercial Internet users in the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). Faced with a number of different recommendations stemming from various independent reviews and GNSO and user-community group efforts, the Board continues to consider this issue and believes that comments from the community, especially stakeholders in the GNSO, ALAC and At-Large groups, and any relevant applicants for new constituencies, would be particularly helpful. Potential commenters are asked to consider addressing 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. A summary document has been prepared by the ICANN Staff to provide background on this issue and to outline a number of potential options being considered by the Board. Deadline and How to Submit Comments The Staff is opening a 30-day public consultation forum, from 28 October 2008 until 28 November 2008, and invites community comments on this topic. Comments on the document are welcome via email at gnso-users@icann.org. This public forum will be open through 28 November 2008. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-users/. For a copy of the public announcement of this forum please see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28oct08-en.htm. Is it clear to you what this comment period covers? Do you have all the information you need to respond? Please click "More information please" below to email ICANN directly Staff member responsible: Robert Hoggarth | More information please Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Patrick, Thanks. Doesn't Milton Mueller's proposal for the GNSO Non Commercial Stakeholder Group cover much of this? And has there been any discussion about the role of the General Assembly in the new GNSO structure? (DNSO = <http://www.icann.org/en/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-12feb02.htm#VI-B-4>) Something that strikes me as wrong is the statement "the commercial stakeholders group and the Business Constituency will continue to welcome sole traders, that is individuals who have incorporated a commercial entity and who are registrants." Seems very industrial, and also convenient. I don't agree with the tone of the summary document that seems to be suggesting individuals must be represented on the non commercial group. eBay traders, people making small amounts from AdSense, entrepreneurs (not necessarily successful) etc. should be eligible to join the commercial house. Individual users should be given the same opportunities by all stakeholder groups and be able to choose which group they join. Adam
Question: do we plan to submit comments to this document, in addition to what we already did in the framework of the GNSO improvement effort ? If so, how are we going to proceed with only 11 days left ?
This question aside, I still issues on the process. I do not remember we were explicitly asked to provide comments. Are we supposed to monitor each and every mailing list to find out what is expected from us ? And again, 3O days is too short for the At-Large community to respond to such requests.
Patrick Vande Walle
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ga] Reminder: Submit comments to "The Role of Individual Internet Usersin the GNSO" Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:56:57 -0800 From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> To: "mail=ga@gnso.icann.org" <ga@gnso.icann.org>
[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org]
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200811.html#gnso-users The Role of Individual Internet Users in the GNSO Open: 28 Oct 08 Closed: 28 Nov 08 Explanation: The ICANN Board has asked for additional community input on the appropriate role and representation of individual commercial and non-commercial Internet users in the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). Faced with a number of different recommendations stemming from various independent reviews and GNSO and user-community group efforts, the Board continues to consider this issue and believes that comments from the community, especially stakeholders in the GNSO, ALAC and At-Large groups, and any relevant applicants for new constituencies, would be particularly helpful.
Potential commenters are asked to consider addressing 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. A summary document has been prepared by the ICANN Staff to provide background on this issue and to outline a number of potential options being considered by the Board.
Deadline and How to Submit Comments
The Staff is opening a 30-day public consultation forum, from 28 October 2008 until 28 November 2008, and invites community comments on this topic.
Comments on the document are welcome via email at gnso-users@icann.org. This public forum will be open through 28 November 2008. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-users/.
For a copy of the public announcement of this forum please see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28oct08-en.htm.
Is it clear to you what this comment period covers? Do you have all the information you need to respond? Please click "More information please" below to email ICANN directly Staff member responsible: Robert Hoggarth | More information please
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On Nov 17, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
Individual users should be given the same opportunities by all stakeholder groups and be able to choose which group they join.
I couldn't agree more. Overall, I'm not as worried about getting movement on the commercial/ non-commercial question as I am about getting movement on the intellectual property question. I, as with most individuals today, produce large tracts of intellectual property - photographs, blog posts, etc. Much of this has very little commercial value, but our rights in these works is no less important. It is very difficult (read: impossible) in the current iteration of ICANN to get airtime for individual intellectual property rights - big business (read: hollywood and the telco's) have moved in, taken over and completely control the agenda. Room has to be made for those that don't necessary agree with the BigHollywood view of intellectual property. /ross
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ross Rader wrote:
Overall, I'm not as worried about getting movement on the commercial/non-commercial question as I am about getting movement on the intellectual property question. I, as with most individuals today, produce large tracts of intellectual property - photographs, blog posts, etc. Much of this has very little commercial value, but our rights in these works is no less important. It is very difficult (read: impossible) in the current iteration of ICANN to get airtime for individual intellectual property rights - big business (read: hollywood and the telco's) have moved in, taken over and completely control the agenda.
Room has to be made for those that don't necessary agree with the BigHollywood view of intellectual property.
While I (believe I) understand the issues you discuss, I need to also understand their relevance in an ICANN context. Just as Robert's free-speech bloggers in Cairo were important but completely irrelevant to ICANN's narrow scope, I need to understand how the issues you raise relate here. The IPC (for which I have no great fondness) concentrates on trademark and naming issues which are directly relevant. What you raise also appears to deal with Internet content, as opposed to naming or IP numbering issues. As part of an ALS that's very involved in copyright and the growing battle between creators and "rights holders", I am very sensitive to personal IP matters. What I haven't yet done myself is be able to (directly) link these issues to ICANN's mandate. - - Evan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJIZCqB6WWYxnsgmwRAvw5AKCapXdS5AfvLutrfdIaiUCS/imYqACeLjr5 D4NvAxAC2caeItWw+uor1xk= =uSqB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Nov 17, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
The IPC (for which I have no great fondness) concentrates on trademark and naming issues which are directly relevant.
Yes - as a individual content producer, I have similar interest in these issues. The fact that my content has little commercial value (blogs and photos, etc.) shouldn't disqualify my participation. I agree that issues related to the content itself (i.e. blogs, photos and movies) usually don't fall within ICANN's mandate, nor am I arguing that it should. I'm simply asking that all content (i.e. blogs, photos and movies) producers should have a seat at the table, not just providers of commercially oriented content. Sorry for being less than clear in my earlier note. /ross
NCUC is discussing a new draft of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group petition, please see attached. Draft has been well received. One amendment will be to the citizen requirement, people will likely be asked to choose either by national citizenship or residence when identification by geographic region is necessary. Adam
On Nov 17, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
The IPC (for which I have no great fondness) concentrates on trademark and naming issues which are directly relevant.
Yes - as a individual content producer, I have similar interest in these issues. The fact that my content has little commercial value (blogs and photos, etc.) shouldn't disqualify my participation.
I agree that issues related to the content itself (i.e. blogs, photos and movies) usually don't fall within ICANN's mandate, nor am I arguing that it should. I'm simply asking that all content (i.e. blogs, photos and movies) producers should have a seat at the table, not just providers of commercially oriented content.
Sorry for being less than clear in my earlier note.
/ross
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Hello Ross, On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
On Nov 17, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
Individual users should be given the same opportunities by all stakeholder groups and be able to choose which group they join.
I couldn't agree more.
Overall, I'm not as worried about getting movement on the commercial/non-commercial question as I am about getting movement on the intellectual property question. I, as with most individuals today, produce large tracts of intellectual property - photographs, blog posts, etc. Much of this has very little commercial value, but our rights in these works is no less important. It is very difficult (read: impossible) in the current iteration of ICANN to get airtime for individual intellectual property rights -
Am confused. Why is content (photos/blog posts) an issue for ICANN? -- Cheers, McTim http://stateoftheinternetin.ug
participants (5)
-
Adam Peake -
Evan Leibovitch -
McTim -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Ross Rader