ICANN Board resolution from meeting of 11 Dec 08
Hello All, The only adopted Board resolution from the Board teleconference relevant to the GNSO last week was: From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-11dec08.htm 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. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Bruce - Thanks. Denise alerted us to this in our Council meeting yesterday. I some questions for you. The resolution seems to focus on individual noncommercial Internet users only. Was that intentional? Why were individual commercial Internet users (e.g., sole proprietorships) excluded? We probably should discuss how to accomplish this task on the list. If we wait until our next meeting on 8 January, we will have only 16 days to meet the deadline. As I pointed out in our call yesterday, the Council already endorsed the GNSO restructure recommendations that proposed including users in the User House of the GNSO, both commercial and noncommercial. Does anyone think that our position has changed in that regard? Some other questions to consider: - How do we involve representatives of potential new "non-commercial" constituencies? - Should we involve individual commercial Internet users even though the motion appears to exclude them? - Would those who will be part of the Non-Commercial User SG and the Commercial User SG be willing to propose any recommendations? - How can we best work with members of the ALAC and At-Large? Avri - It seems like it would be good for you to reach out to Cheryl Langdon-Orr. Alan - 1) What suggestions do you have regarding how we can best work with members of the ALAC and At-Large? 2) Has the ALAC or At-Large reached any common position regarding the involvement of users in the GNSO? Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 6:01 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] ICANN Board resolution from meeting of 11 Dec 08
Hello All,
The only adopted Board resolution from the Board teleconference relevant to the GNSO last week was:
From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-11dec08.htm
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.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Chuck, your question is deeply disappointing. re:"Why were individual commercial Internet users (e.g., sole proprietorships) excluded?" Let me say this for the nth time. The BC since it very beginning has welcomed individuals. The BC since it very beginning has welcomed individuals. The BC since it very beginning has welcomed individuals. The BC since it very beginning has welcomed individuals. We currently have a number of sole proprietor companies some of whom you may have heard of: Marilyn Cade Mike Rodenbaugh Mike Palage. There are more. Conclusion The Board needs to make no special provision for sole proprietors. The Board does need to encourage ALAC type individuals into the GNSO non-commercial group otherwise the entire reform effort will be null and void. Trust this is clear. Philip
Philip, That really doesn't detract from my questions? Unless the Board intentionally meant to focus on noncommercial users, then it might still be useful to involve individual commerical users as well as individual noncommerical users in our efforts. Also, I don't believe that the At-Large is restricted to noncommercial users so it could be beneficial for our joint efforts with them to involve individual commerical users. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 8:58 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Cc: 'Bruce Tonkin' Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board resolution from meeting of 11 Dec 08
Chuck, your question is deeply disappointing. re:"Why were individual commercial Internet users (e.g., sole proprietorships) excluded?"
Let me say this for the nth time.
The BC since it very beginning has welcomed individuals. The BC since it very beginning has welcomed individuals. The BC since it very beginning has welcomed individuals. The BC since it very beginning has welcomed individuals.
We currently have a number of sole proprietor companies some of whom you may have heard of: Marilyn Cade Mike Rodenbaugh Mike Palage.
There are more.
Conclusion The Board needs to make no special provision for sole proprietors.
The Board does need to encourage ALAC type individuals into the GNSO non-commercial group otherwise the entire reform effort will be null and void.
Trust this is clear.
Philip
Chuck, you approach this from the perspective of an academic ... thoroughness. I and others and I hope the Board from the perspective of priority. Today commercial users are well represented in the GNSO. Non-commercial are not so well represented. That is the priority. Today, commercial individuals have a place to go. Other individuals do not. That is the priority. Philip
Hi, Please pardon me for asking a question here, I don't wish to inflame the subject, but if a group of Independent Professional Registrants who use their domain names to make their living but who are not interested in domain names as a business per se (as is the case with your 3 examples), wish to participate collectively in the GNSO, would they be able to do so within the current BC structures and the future non contracted parties CSG. I have asked this question before and been told that these professional registrants would not be interested. And I am sure they would not be interested to the level and scope as your current individual members, but is there a place for such people to express collective registrant concerns in the same way that non commercial registrants want to collectively express their concerns. And also, I wonder if the Board believes there is such a population of individual commercial registrants (e.g. doctors, artists, engineers, musicians and architects) that is not currently represented that should be represented and are they seen as part of this exercise. thanks a. On 19 Dec 2008, at 15:42, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Chuck, you approach this from the perspective of an academic ... thoroughness.
I and others and I hope the Board from the perspective of priority.
Today commercial users are well represented in the GNSO. Non-commercial are not so well represented. That is the priority.
Today, commercial individuals have a place to go. Other individuals do not. That is the priority.
Philip
Hi,
Please pardon me for asking a question here, I don't wish to inflame the subject, but if a group of Independent Professional Registrants who use their domain names to make their living but who are not interested in domain names as a business per se (as is the case with your 3 examples), wish to participate collectively in the GNSO, would they be able to do so within the current BC structures and the future non contracted parties CSG.
YES.
Hi, Thanks for the rather emphatic answer below. I am glad to hear there is a place for Independent Professional Registrants. I was, however, looking at the BC application, and I did not see an Individual category, only a
micro enterprise
(both under 10 employees and under Euro 0.5 million turnover)
or from the membership pack
Category 3
Is for Micro enterprises defined as companies which can demonstrate both less than 10 employees and a turnover of less than €0.5 million and costs just €250 per year.
And from the charter:
3.1. The following may become members of the Business Constituency: Subject to 3.2, any legally recognised for-profit entity that has been delegated a domain and that uses the Internet to conduct for- profit business. Subject to 3.2, any organization such as a trade association representing such entities.
Is there a separate application for individual professional registrants? For example, I am, in addition to being an academic, a consultant who has a domain name that I use for the commercial purposes of my consultancy (protocol design, standards certification etc). I am not a corporate entity, a registered business or even a DBA but am what is called is call an independent professional (1099 in the US tax parlance). So this is a commercial registration (non natural person in the Whois context) and the consultancy is hopefully for profit though not at all related to ICANN activities, and hence not qualified in this respect for the NCSG. Under what category could I apply for membership (of course if I were not currently an NCA)? The Membership info also reflects
The Business Constituency is a constituency representing customers of providers of connectivity, domain names, Internet Protocol addresses and other services related to electronic commerce in its broad sense.
The Independent professionals I am asking about generally have domain names but may be using the Internet for commercial purpose without actually using it for electronic commerce. Some do, e.g. music download by individual artists, but often it is only to advertise ones service and provide contact info. Does this still fall in the broad sense? thanks a. On 21 Dec 2008, at 06:27, philip.sheppard@aim.be wrote:
Hi,
Please pardon me for asking a question here, I don't wish to inflame the subject, but if a group of Independent Professional Registrants who use their domain names to make their living but who are not interested in domain names as a business per se (as is the case with your 3 examples), wish to participate collectively in the GNSO, would they be able to do so within the current BC structures and the future non contracted parties CSG.
YES.
Hello Chuck,
Bruce - Thanks. Denise alerted us to this in our Council meeting yesterday. I some questions for you. The resolution seems to focus on individual non-commercial Internet users only. Was that intentional? Why were individual commercial Internet users (e.g., sole proprietorships) excluded?
I think there is an understanding that there are commercial as well as non-commercial Internet users, but the focus of discussions has been on encouraging participation from non-commercial Internet users that may not be heavily involved in policy development at present. Many of these non-commercial Internet users may not be domain name registrants. I note that individual commercial Internet users also are quite diverse in their interests in domain names - ranging from those that are not domain name registrants and merely use the Internet for communication with suppliers, to those that actively maintain a portfolio of second level domains that either appreciate in capital value or earn money through advertising. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Thanks Bruce. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 5:21 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Regarding individual users
Hello Chuck,
Bruce - Thanks. Denise alerted us to this in our Council meeting yesterday. I some questions for you. The resolution seems
to focus on
individual non-commercial Internet users only. Was that intentional? Why were individual commercial Internet users (e.g., sole proprietorships) excluded?
I think there is an understanding that there are commercial as well as non-commercial Internet users, but the focus of discussions has been on encouraging participation from non-commercial Internet users that may not be heavily involved in policy development at present. Many of these non-commercial Internet users may not be domain name registrants.
I note that individual commercial Internet users also are quite diverse in their interests in domain names - ranging from those that are not domain name registrants and merely use the Internet for communication with suppliers, to those that actively maintain a portfolio of second level domains that either appreciate in capital value or earn money through advertising.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Hi, On 26 Dec 2008, at 05:21, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
I note that individual commercial Internet users also are quite diverse in their interests in domain names - ranging from those that are not domain name registrants and merely use the Internet for communication with suppliers, to those that actively maintain a portfolio of second level domains that either appreciate in capital value or earn money through advertising.
While I have not seen figures and it would be interesting to see such figures, I assume a much larger group (at least larger then the portfolio holder category) of Commercial interest are the Registrants whose small or single proprietor businesses depend on the outreach, advertising and information distribution gained through use of heir web sites. And while the outreach of the GNSO into the non-registrant user community has been prescribed, I still think the GNSO needs to make sure that we care for the interests of all registrants, commercial and non-commercial, as a special class, as they are dependent on the GNSO and its council as the only voice they have in order to get a fair deal from ICANN and its contracted parties. I am hoping we don't forget these two categories of registrants while making a further outreach to non-registrant users as these registrants remain unrepresented for the most part (despite a few individuals who are represented). a.
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Gomes, Chuck -
Philip Sheppard -
philip.sheppard＠aim.be