Thanks, Chuck, for your very reasonable response to our concerns on this matter. Your stated position – that Stakeholder Groups themselves should play a leading role in defining their structure – is the same as ours. You ask, “What gives [us] the impression that the NCSG will be defined by commercial users and contracting parties?” The answer, unfortunately, is the Board resolution of Dec. 12 (and below) and Avri’s proposed response to it. This calls for the NCSG to be defined by the entire GNSO and ALAC – indeed, it does not even mention existing members of NCUC as participants in the process. We are convinced that this is some kind of a mistake by the Board and that it did not really know what it was doing when it passed that resolution. And we have some private communications with Board members that confirm that – it was introduced by staff at the end of a long meeting concerned with gTLDs and was not discussed or debated. However, the resolution is there and concerns us. If you can join us in deferring the formation of this group and resdponding to the Board with some questions about the appropriateness of that resolution we would greatly appreciate it. Thank you, Robin 8. Role of Individual Users in GNSO – Briefing and Action Approved Resolution Whereas, the Board has received varying recommendations on registrant and user involvement in the GNSO, and the issue of how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in constructive yet non-duplicative ways remains an open issue that affects GNSO restructuring. Resolved, (2008-12-11-02) the Board requests that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At-Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial" constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the composition and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet ensures that the gTLD interests of individual Internet users (along with the broader non-commercial community) are effectively represented within the GNSO. This recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board. On Jan 17, 2009, at 5:34 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Robin,
Please see my responses below.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 4:58 PM To: Council GNSO Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [council] commercial and contractual constituencies meddling in structure of noncommercial group is unacceptable
Don't think I can post to the GNSO Council list, so will an NCUC Councilor please pass along this message. Thank you! Robin
----
Dear GNSO Councilors:
It is completely unacceptable for the structure of the new NCSG to be defined and shaped by commercial users and contracting parties. Noncommercial stakeholders can and will define their own structure suitable to themselves and not be manipulated by other stakeholder groups who might seek to undermine its effectiveness. It is naïve and disingenuous to pretend that the different SGs don't have competing and often conflicting interests. [Gomes, Chuck] What gives you the impression that the NCSG will be defined by commercial users and contracting parties?
We note that no one has invited NCUC or ALAC to participate in defining a new structure for the Commercial SG, or the Registrar and Registry SGs. This kind of discrimination among SGs will discourage additional noncommercial entities from participating in ICANN's GNSO. [Gomes, Chuck] What discrimination?
Please note that NCUC has already proposed a structure for the NCSG that has the overwhelming support of the noncommercial stakeholders currently active in ICANN. We have conveyed it to At Large, discussed its principles in public meetings in Cairo, and are in conversations with staff about it now. While we welcome efforts to amend it from new constituency proponents and relevant members of At Large, that proposal will serve as the basis for any NCSG proposals that go to the Board.
We have no objection in principle to working with At large members and RALOs in this process, and as noted before we have already tried to include them in our ongoing process. But we also note that individual or organizational At Large members may also be commercial users and thus ineligible to join a future noncommercial SG, and thus have no legitimate role to play in the definition of our structure.
The Board Governance Committee has made it clear on numerous occasions that Stakeholder Groups themselves should play a leading role in defining their structure. Explicit statements to that effect have been made by Roberto Gaetano, former Board members and BGC member Susan Crawford, and Harald Alvestrand. This is, quite obviously, the right approach. [Gomes, Chuck] Agreed. I am just not clear on why you think it would be different than this. My understanding is that each Constituency Renewal request and Stakeholder Group Charter will be developed by the applicable constituencies and Stakeholder Group members and submitted to the Board for Board approval, not to the GNSO for GNSO approval. And the Board will judge each renewal request and SG Charter against the recommendations that they approved for GNSO improvement.
Best, Robin Gross Chair of Non-Commercial Users Constituency
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org