Dear Bruce, Thank you for your response below to the issues of membership to the IDN working group. I appreciate that you have refereed to the procedures in the bylaw for the start of a "new constituency", which the "interest group" has talked about recently and interested to pursue. I am also aware that it will take longer time (as evidenced from your email reference below) and will not address the immediate attention required to include some of the key groups that have been knocking at out doors recently, viz: *Fwd: Re: Regtime of Russia participation in the ICANN IDN GNSO policy group, dated Sat Sep 17, 2007* *Fwd: why Karmania Media was rejected from being involved in ICANN committee?, Sun 18 Feb 2007* All the interested parties above have evidenced they have satisfied the criteria, according to the emails they shared with you/us. The issues appears that after they were told they qualify, *the new and revised criteria* that the BC secretariat outlined seem to have disqualified them. Towards this end, this is a reminder for you as you have asked me already to bring the issue up at or meeting today, so we can find *an alternate method*of getting people on board *until* ICANN decides to form/approve an IDN Constituency group. Many thanks and regards, Sophia On 19/02/07, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au > wrote:
Hello All,
Following the GNSO Public Forum in Sao Paulo I have heard of instances where interested parties that wish to join the IDN working group have been unable to join a constituency in order to participate.
The ICANN bylaws do provide the ability for a group of interested stakeholders to form a new constituency:
"4. Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition shall contain a detailed explanation of:
a. Why the addition of such a Constituency will improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development responsibilities; and
b. Why the proposed new Constituency would adequately represent, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks to represent.
Any petition for the recognition of a new Constituency shall be posted for public comment.
5. The Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of ICANN. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing all comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it shall notify the GNSO Council and shall consider any response to that notification prior to taking action."
I am not aware of a group that has chosen to try to form a new constituency.
To get the best policy outcomes however I feel with should be as inclusive as possible, whilst ensuring that members of working groups are contributing in a positive way.
It seems to me that we need a process to handle requests for participation:
(1) Determine if the participant would be eligible to join a GNSO constituency. If they are eligible - require them first to join and then allow participation.
(2) If a participant is ineligible to join a constituency, then direct
the participant to a process to determine if they are suitable as an "expert". The applicant would need to provide a detailed statement of (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest. The ICANN staff would need to verify the statement of qualifications and experience, and perhaps we have a process where the experts are appointed by majority vote of the GNSO Council. The experts would be non-voting members of the working group.
I would be interested in hearing from other Council members on an appropriate process that could apply to all working groups.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin