Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
At 29/01/2009 05:42 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
Motion 4 Motion re: Individual Users in the GNSO ======================================= Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Bill Drake with friendly amendments by Alan Greenberg Whereas: * On 11 December 2008, the ICANN Board approved Resolution 2008-12-11-02 seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways and requesting that the recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board. * In an email message to the GNSO Council list dated 20 January 2009, the ICANN Vice President, Policy Development clarified that the11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for all user and registrant stakeholders. * The Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring Report sent to the ICANN Board of Directors on 25 July 2008 recommended that the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to membership of all interested parties that use or provide services for the Internet, with the obvious exclusion of the contracted parties and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC and that such recommendation was made in response to the suggestion of the ALAC Liaison to the Council. * The GNSO Council Chair previously contacted the ALAC Chair and the GNSO ALAC Liaison to discuss this topic. * The potential members of the two GNSO Council Non-Contracted Party Stakeholder Groups have been tasked with submitting proposed Stakeholder Group Charters to the ICANN Board prior to the Board meeting on 6 March 2009. Resolve: * The Council requests the GNSO Council ALAC Liaison in consultation with the ALAC Chair to: * Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community have any concerns with regard to the recommendation that membership in the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to individual Internet users in addition to domain name registrants and, if so, to communicate those concerns to the GNSO Council as soon as practical The ALAC and At-Large continue to support having users (which includes registrants) involved in the Non-contracted Party/User House of the GNSO. Our initial reply to the Board is appended below. * Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community would like the GNSO to identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Boards request that could be forwarded to the appropriate groups for their consideration in developing a stakeholder group charter and to the Board for action on GNSO improvement recommendations. We are most certainly interested. As noted in our initial response to the Board, we are committed to responding to the Board by February 20. Our intent is to try to reach some common ground with the GNSO-names individuals. To the extent that we do or do not meet this goal, our response to the Board will note it.
If in either case the ALAC or At-large community do not accept this proposal the GNSO council may reconsider the issue. * Provide weekly progress reports to the Council list regarding the above.
* The Council directs the Council Chair to: * Apologize to the Board that it failed to meet the Board established deadline of 24 January * Inform the Board that the GNSO: * Is awaiting information from the ALAC. * Is willing in cooperation with users to identify user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation. * Will promptly consider next steps and respond to the Board as quickly as possible after requested information is received from the ALAC as well any recommendation that may be developed by the ALAC and At-Large community. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote
*Letter from the Chair of the ALAC to the Chair of the Board of ICANN* I write to you today in connection with ICANN Board Resolution 2008-12-11-02. Whilst the resolution asked that a recommendation on the modalities for including Individual Internet users in the GNSO should be presented to the board by 24^th January, the various parties have been unable to conclude work in the timeframe provided. Considering that much of the available time between 11^th December and 24^th January was over the festive season, I'm sure you and the other board members will understand that whilst we are working on the question, as volunteers during a major family holiday we have had less time for this issue than would otherwise be the case. With respect to At-Large we are also very busy with new gTLDs, the ALAC Review, and the organisation of the At-Large Summit; the Board's request really couldn't have come at a worse time. Nevertheless we are working on the question. I have had discussions with Avri Doria, GNSO Council Chair, on how to convene the various interested parties and I compliment her efforts to encourage constructive work on this question. Unfortunately the modalities for joint work by all interested parties has in itself proven controversial enough that no meeting of that kind has taken place yet, it does appear that things are moving in a positive direction and that discussions of a suitably representative nature will be forthcoming. In the meantime, At-Large has convened a regionally-balanced ad-hoc working group and we have committed to having a considered response not later than 20^th February, irrespective of what efforts involving broader interests is able to produce. What we can say to you at this point is the following: * At-Large and ALAC does not believe that the answer to individual Internet user participation in the GNSO requires -- or is even well-served -- by simply inserting the At-Large community's structures into the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. In fact, we believe that would be both confusing to the community and quite counterproductive. * The concept of opening the GNSO to "users" instead of "registrants" was included in the Report of the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring at the instigation of the ALAC. We remain convinced that the GNSO must include meaningful participation for those speaking on behalf of individual Internet users within both the commercial and non-commercial stakeholder groups. But to be clear, our definition of "user" includes registrants. * "meaningful participation" in this context means that those engaged on behalf of individual Internet users must feel that their voices are influential and effective and equal to the voices of other groups in their Stakeholder Group. Without this, there is no chance that new players can be drawn into the GNSO community. * We have seen the draft NCUC petition and charter for the NCSG, held a meeting with members of the NCUC during the ICANN Cairo meeting to discuss it and we continue to evaluate the proposal. Without prejudice to that proposal, we believe that the ultimate structure of the NCSG must provide a place where all voices and views can be heard on the questions of the day, and where the structures of the NCSG ensure that no voice is disenfranchised and in particular that individual personalities are unable to impose their views on others. Just as "takeover" is an issue within ICANN as a whole, it is also an issue within a SG. Whilst I know that the above is not all that you hoped to receive from us this month, I hope that you will find it useful and we look forward to concluding our work on this question, as soon as possible. Of course if you or your colleagues require clarification on any of the above, I, our ALAC Executive, and the Working Group established for this topic, remain at your service. Kindest regards, (Signed on behalf the ALAC ad-hoc WG on NCSG : GNSO Improvements Implementation) Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2007-2009
Avri and all, We need to very quickly "identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Board's request". Does the NCUC have any recommendations? Should we seek some volunteers from the GA list? Can anyone recommend an individual user? Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:20 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. At 29/01/2009 05:42 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: Motion 4 Motion re: Individual Users in the GNSO ======================================= Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Bill Drake with friendly amendments by Alan Greenberg Whereas: * On 11 December 2008, the ICANN Board approved Resolution 2008-12-11-02 seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways and requesting that the recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board. * In an email message to the GNSO Council list dated 20 January 2009, the ICANN Vice President, Policy Development clarified that the11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for all user and registrant stakeholders. * The Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring Report sent to the ICANN Board of Directors on 25 July 2008 recommended that the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to membership of all interested parties that use or provide services for the Internet, with the obvious exclusion of the contracted parties and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC and that such recommendation was made in response to the suggestion of the ALAC Liaison to the Council. * The GNSO Council Chair previously contacted the ALAC Chair and the GNSO ALAC Liaison to discuss this topic. * The potential members of the two GNSO Council Non-Contracted Party Stakeholder Groups have been tasked with submitting proposed Stakeholder Group Charters to the ICANN Board prior to the Board meeting on 6 March 2009. Resolve: * The Council requests the GNSO Council ALAC Liaison in consultation with the ALAC Chair to: * Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community have any concerns with regard to the recommendation that membership in the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to individual Internet users in addition to domain name registrants and, if so, to communicate those concerns to the GNSO Council as soon as practical The ALAC and At-Large continue to support having users (which includes registrants) involved in the Non-contracted Party/User House of the GNSO. Our initial reply to the Board is appended below. * Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community would like the GNSO to identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Board's request that could be forwarded to the appropriate groups for their consideration in developing a stakeholder group charter and to the Board for action on GNSO improvement recommendations. We are most certainly interested. As noted in our initial response to the Board, we are committed to responding to the Board by February 20. Our intent is to try to reach some common ground with the GNSO-names individuals. To the extent that we do or do not meet this goal, our response to the Board will note it. If in either case the ALAC or At-large community do not accept this proposal the GNSO council may reconsider the issue. * Provide weekly progress reports to the Council list regarding the above. * The Council directs the Council Chair to: * Apologize to the Board that it failed to meet the Board established deadline of 24 January * Inform the Board that the GNSO: * Is awaiting information from the ALAC. * Is willing in cooperation with users to identify user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation. * Will promptly consider next steps and respond to the Board as quickly as possible after requested information is received from the ALAC as well any recommendation that may be developed by the ALAC and At-Large community. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote *Letter from the Chair of the ALAC to the Chair of the Board of ICANN* I write to you today in connection with ICANN Board Resolution 2008-12-11-02. Whilst the resolution asked that a recommendation on the modalities for including Individual Internet users in the GNSO should be presented to the board by 24^th January, the various parties have been unable to conclude work in the timeframe provided. Considering that much of the available time between 11^th December and 24^th January was over the festive season, I'm sure you and the other board members will understand that whilst we are working on the question, as volunteers during a major family holiday we have had less time for this issue than would otherwise be the case. With respect to At-Large we are also very busy with new gTLDs, the ALAC Review, and the organisation of the At-Large Summit; the Board's request really couldn't have come at a worse time. Nevertheless we are working on the question. I have had discussions with Avri Doria, GNSO Council Chair, on how to convene the various interested parties and I compliment her efforts to encourage constructive work on this question. Unfortunately the modalities for joint work by all interested parties has in itself proven controversial enough that no meeting of that kind has taken place yet, it does appear that things are moving in a positive direction and that discussions of a suitably representative nature will be forthcoming. In the meantime, At-Large has convened a regionally-balanced ad-hoc working group and we have committed to having a considered response not later than 20^th February, irrespective of what efforts involving broader interests is able to produce. What we can say to you at this point is the following: * At-Large and ALAC does not believe that the answer to individual Internet user participation in the GNSO requires -- or is even well-served -- by simply inserting the At-Large community's structures into the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. In fact, we believe that would be both confusing to the community and quite counterproductive. * The concept of opening the GNSO to "users" instead of "registrants" was included in the Report of the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring at the instigation of the ALAC. We remain convinced that the GNSO must include meaningful participation for those speaking on behalf of individual Internet users within both the commercial and non-commercial stakeholder groups. But to be clear, our definition of "user" includes registrants. * "meaningful participation" in this context means that those engaged on behalf of individual Internet users must feel that their voices are influential and effective and equal to the voices of other groups in their Stakeholder Group. Without this, there is no chance that new players can be drawn into the GNSO community. * We have seen the draft NCUC petition and charter for the NCSG, held a meeting with members of the NCUC during the ICANN Cairo meeting to discuss it and we continue to evaluate the proposal. Without prejudice to that proposal, we believe that the ultimate structure of the NCSG must provide a place where all voices and views can be heard on the questions of the day, and where the structures of the NCSG ensure that no voice is disenfranchised and in particular that individual personalities are unable to impose their views on others. Just as "takeover" is an issue within ICANN as a whole, it is also an issue within a SG. Whilst I know that the above is not all that you hoped to receive from us this month, I hope that you will find it useful and we look forward to concluding our work on this question, as soon as possible. Of course if you or your colleagues require clarification on any of the above, I, our ALAC Executive, and the Working Group established for this topic, remain at your service. Kindest regards, (Signed on behalf the ALAC ad-hoc WG on NCSG : GNSO Improvements Implementation) Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2007-2009
Everyone, The NCUC would like to express its thanks to those members who have worked on the motion and the various activities that accompany it. We believe the question of individual user engagement is, like public participation, an important and vital part of the ICANN model and process. The NCUC is also fully committed to contributing to processes and models, going forward, that will facilitate individual user participation (non-commercial and otherwise) in the GNSO and other aspects of ICANN work. As such, the NCUC would like to nominate two of its Councillors, viz. myself (Mary) and Bill Drake, to serve as user representatives to assist in creating a useful and representative recommendation to the Board in this respect. Best regards, Mary (for the NCUC) Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> 2/3/2009 8:19 PM >>> Avri and all,
We need to very quickly "identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Boards request". Does the NCUC have any recommendations? Should we seek some volunteers from the GA list? Can anyone recommend an individual user? Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:20 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. At 29/01/2009 05:42 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: Motion 4 Motion re: Individual Users in the GNSO ======================================= Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Bill Drake with friendly amendments by Alan Greenberg Whereas: On 11 December 2008, the ICANN Board approved Resolution 2008-12-11-02 seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways and requesting that the recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board. In an email message to the GNSO Council list dated 20 January 2009, the ICANN Vice President, Policy Development clarified that the11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for all user and registrant stakeholders. The Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring Report sent to the ICANN Board of Directors on 25 July 2008 recommended that the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to membership of all interested parties that use or provide services for the Internet, with the obvious exclusion of the contracted parties and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC and that such recommendation was made in response to the suggestion of the ALAC Liaison to the Council. The GNSO Council Chair previously contacted the ALAC Chair and the GNSO ALAC Liaison to discuss this topic. The potential members of the two GNSO Council Non-Contracted Party Stakeholder Groups have been tasked with submitting proposed Stakeholder Group Charters to the ICANN Board prior to the Board meeting on 6 March 2009. Resolve: The Council requests the GNSO Council ALAC Liaison in consultation with the ALAC Chair to: Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community have any concerns with regard to the recommendation that membership in the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to individual Internet users in addition to domain name registrants and, if so, to communicate those concerns to the GNSO Council as soon as practical The ALAC and At-Large continue to support having users (which includes registrants) involved in the Non-contracted Party/User House of the GNSO. Our initial reply to the Board is appended below. Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community would like the GNSO to identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Boards request that could be forwarded to the appropriate groups for their consideration in developing a stakeholder group charter and to the Board for action on GNSO improvement recommendations. We are most certainly interested. As noted in our initial response to the Board, we are committed to responding to the Board by February 20. Our intent is to try to reach some common ground with the GNSO-names individuals. To the extent that we do or do not meet this goal, our response to the Board will note it. If in either case the ALAC or At-large community do not accept this proposal the GNSO council may reconsider the issue. Provide weekly progress reports to the Council list regarding the above. The Council directs the Council Chair to: Apologize to the Board that it failed to meet the Board established deadline of 24 January Inform the Board that the GNSO: Is awaiting information from the ALAC. Is willing in cooperation with users to identify user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation. Will promptly consider next steps and respond to the Board as quickly as possible after requested information is received from the ALAC as well any recommendation that may be developed by the ALAC and At-Large community. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote *Letter from the Chair of the ALAC to the Chair of the Board of ICANN* I write to you today in connection with ICANN Board Resolution 2008-12-11-02. Whilst the resolution asked that a recommendation on the modalities for including Individual Internet users in the GNSO should be presented to the board by 24^th January, the various parties have been unable to conclude work in the timeframe provided. Considering that much of the available time between 11^th December and 24^th January was over the festive season, I'm sure you and the other board members will understand that whilst we are working on the question, as volunteers during a major family holiday we have had less time for this issue than would otherwise be the case. With respect to At-Large we are also very busy with new gTLDs, the ALAC Review, and the organisation of the At-Large Summit; the Board's request really couldn't have come at a worse time. Nevertheless we are working on the question. I have had discussions with Avri Doria, GNSO Council Chair, on how to convene the various interested parties and I compliment her efforts to encourage constructive work on this question. Unfortunately the modalities for joint work by all interested parties has in itself proven controversial enough that no meeting of that kind has taken place yet, it does appear that things are moving in a positive direction and that discussions of a suitably representative nature will be forthcoming. In the meantime, At-Large has convened a regionally-balanced ad-hoc working group and we have committed to having a considered response not later than 20^th February, irrespective of what efforts involving broader interests is able to produce. What we can say to you at this point is the following: * At-Large and ALAC does not believe that the answer to individual Internet user participation in the GNSO requires -- or is even well-served -- by simply inserting the At-Large community's structures into the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. In fact, we believe that would be both confusing to the community and quite counterproductive. * The concept of opening the GNSO to "users" instead of "registrants" was included in the Report of the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring at the instigation of the ALAC. We remain convinced that the GNSO must include meaningful participation for those speaking on behalf of individual Internet users within both the commercial and non-commercial stakeholder groups. But to be clear, our definition of "user" includes registrants. * "meaningful participation" in this context means that those engaged on behalf of individual Internet users must feel that their voices are influential and effective and equal to the voices of other groups in their Stakeholder Group. Without this, there is no chance that new players can be drawn into the GNSO community. * We have seen the draft NCUC petition and charter for the NCSG, held a meeting with members of the NCUC during the ICANN Cairo meeting to discuss it and we continue to evaluate the proposal. Without prejudice to that proposal, we believe that the ultimate structure of the NCSG must provide a place where all voices and views can be heard on the questions of the day, and where the structures of the NCSG ensure that no voice is disenfranchised and in particular that individual personalities are unable to impose their views on others. Just as "takeover" is an issue within ICANN as a whole, it is also an issue within a SG. Whilst I know that the above is not all that you hoped to receive from us this month, I hope that you will find it useful and we look forward to concluding our work on this question, as soon as possible. Of course if you or your colleagues require clarification on any of the above, I, our ALAC Executive, and the Working Group established for this topic, remain at your service. Kindest regards, (Signed on behalf the ALAC ad-hoc WG on NCSG : GNSO Improvements Implementation) Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2007-2009
Hi Mary, Thanks to you and Bill for volunteering, but could you please describe why you believe you two are representative of individual users? -Mike R. _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:53 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org; Alan Greenberg; Chuck Gomes Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. Everyone, The NCUC would like to express its thanks to those members who have worked on the motion and the various activities that accompany it. We believe the question of individual user engagement is, like public participation, an important and vital part of the ICANN model and process. The NCUC is also fully committed to contributing to processes and models, going forward, that will facilitate individual user participation (non-commercial and otherwise) in the GNSO and other aspects of ICANN work. As such, the NCUC would like to nominate two of its Councillors, viz. myself (Mary) and Bill Drake, to serve as user representatives to assist in creating a useful and representative recommendation to the Board in this respect. Best regards, Mary (for the NCUC) Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> 2/3/2009 8:19 PM >>>
Avri and all, We need to very quickly "identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Boards request". Does the NCUC have any recommendations? Should we seek some volunteers from the GA list? Can anyone recommend an individual user? Chuck _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:20 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. At 29/01/2009 05:42 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: Motion 4 Motion re: Individual Users in the GNSO ======================================= Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Bill Drake with friendly amendments by Alan Greenberg Whereas: * On 11 December 2008, the ICANN Board approved Resolution 2008-12-11-02 seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways and requesting that the recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board. * In an email message to the GNSO Council list dated 20 January 2009, the ICANN Vice President, Policy Development clarified that the11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for all user and registrant stakeholders. * The Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring Report sent to the ICANN Board of Directors on 25 July 2008 recommended that the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to membership of all interested parties that use or provide services for the Internet, with the obvious exclusion of the contracted parties and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC and that such recommendation was made in response to the suggestion of the ALAC Liaison to the Council. * The GNSO Council Chair previously contacted the ALAC Chair and the GNSO ALAC Liaison to discuss this topic. * The potential members of the two GNSO Council Non-Contracted Party Stakeholder Groups have been tasked with submitting proposed Stakeholder Group Charters to the ICANN Board prior to the Board meeting on 6 March 2009. Resolve: * The Council requests the GNSO Council ALAC Liaison in consultation with the ALAC Chair to: * Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community have any concerns with regard to the recommendation that membership in the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to individual Internet users in addition to domain name registrants and, if so, to communicate those concerns to the GNSO Council as soon as practical The ALAC and At-Large continue to support having users (which includes registrants) involved in the Non-contracted Party/User House of the GNSO. Our initial reply to the Board is appended below. * Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community would like the GNSO to identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Boards request that could be forwarded to the appropriate groups for their consideration in developing a stakeholder group charter and to the Board for action on GNSO improvement recommendations. We are most certainly interested. As noted in our initial response to the Board, we are committed to responding to the Board by February 20. Our intent is to try to reach some common ground with the GNSO-names individuals. To the extent that we do or do not meet this goal, our response to the Board will note it. If in either case the ALAC or At-large community do not accept this proposal the GNSO council may reconsider the issue. * Provide weekly progress reports to the Council list regarding the above. * The Council directs the Council Chair to: * Apologize to the Board that it failed to meet the Board established deadline of 24 January * Inform the Board that the GNSO: * Is awaiting information from the ALAC. * Is willing in cooperation with users to identify user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation. * Will promptly consider next steps and respond to the Board as quickly as possible after requested information is received from the ALAC as well any recommendation that may be developed by the ALAC and At-Large community. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote *Letter from the Chair of the ALAC to the Chair of the Board of ICANN* I write to you today in connection with ICANN Board Resolution 2008-12-11-02. Whilst the resolution asked that a recommendation on the modalities for including Individual Internet users in the GNSO should be presented to the board by 24^th January, the various parties have been unable to conclude work in the timeframe provided. Considering that much of the available time between 11^th December and 24^th January was over the festive season, I'm sure you and the other board members will understand that whilst we are working on the question, as volunteers during a major family holiday we have had less time for this issue than would otherwise be the case. With respect to At-Large we are also very busy with new gTLDs, the ALAC Review, and the organisation of the At-Large Summit; the Board's request really couldn't have come at a worse time. Nevertheless we are working on the question. I have had discussions with Avri Doria, GNSO Council Chair, on how to convene the various interested parties and I compliment her efforts to encourage constructive work on this question. Unfortunately the modalities for joint work by all interested parties has in itself proven controversial enough that no meeting of that kind has taken place yet, it does appear that things are moving in a positive direction and that discussions of a suitably representative nature will be forthcoming. In the meantime, At-Large has convened a regionally-balanced ad-hoc working group and we have committed to having a considered response not later than 20^th February, irrespective of what efforts involving broader interests is able to produce. What we can say to you at this point is the following: * At-Large and ALAC does not believe that the answer to individual Internet user participation in the GNSO requires -- or is even well-served -- by simply inserting the At-Large community's structures into the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. In fact, we believe that would be both confusing to the community and quite counterproductive. * The concept of opening the GNSO to "users" instead of "registrants" was included in the Report of the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring at the instigation of the ALAC. We remain convinced that the GNSO must include meaningful participation for those speaking on behalf of individual Internet users within both the commercial and non-commercial stakeholder groups. But to be clear, our definition of "user" includes registrants. * "meaningful participation" in this context means that those engaged on behalf of individual Internet users must feel that their voices are influential and effective and equal to the voices of other groups in their Stakeholder Group. Without this, there is no chance that new players can be drawn into the GNSO community. * We have seen the draft NCUC petition and charter for the NCSG, held a meeting with members of the NCUC during the ICANN Cairo meeting to discuss it and we continue to evaluate the proposal. Without prejudice to that proposal, we believe that the ultimate structure of the NCSG must provide a place where all voices and views can be heard on the questions of the day, and where the structures of the NCSG ensure that no voice is disenfranchised and in particular that individual personalities are unable to impose their views on others. Just as "takeover" is an issue within ICANN as a whole, it is also an issue within a SG. Whilst I know that the above is not all that you hoped to receive from us this month, I hope that you will find it useful and we look forward to concluding our work on this question, as soon as possible. Of course if you or your colleagues require clarification on any of the above, I, our ALAC Executive, and the Working Group established for this topic, remain at your service. Kindest regards, (Signed on behalf the ALAC ad-hoc WG on NCSG : GNSO Improvements Implementation) Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2007-2009
Mike, I didn't assume they were claiming to be representative of individual users but rather that they are individual users. All our motion asked for was invidual users. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:07 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: 'ALAC Working List' Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. Hi Mary, Thanks to you and Bill for volunteering, but could you please describe why you believe you two are 'representative' of individual users? -Mike R. ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:53 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org; Alan Greenberg; Chuck Gomes Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. Everyone, The NCUC would like to express its thanks to those members who have worked on the motion and the various activities that accompany it. We believe the question of individual user engagement is, like public participation, an important and vital part of the ICANN model and process. The NCUC is also fully committed to contributing to processes and models, going forward, that will facilitate individual user participation (non-commercial and otherwise) in the GNSO and other aspects of ICANN work. As such, the NCUC would like to nominate two of its Councillors, viz. myself (Mary) and Bill Drake, to serve as user representatives to assist in creating a useful and representative recommendation to the Board in this respect. Best regards, Mary (for the NCUC) Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> 2/3/2009 8:19 PM >>> Avri and all, We need to very quickly "identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Board's request". Does the NCUC have any recommendations? Should we seek some volunteers from the GA list? Can anyone recommend an individual user? Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:20 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. At 29/01/2009 05:42 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: Motion 4 Motion re: Individual Users in the GNSO ======================================= Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Bill Drake with friendly amendments by Alan Greenberg Whereas: * On 11 December 2008, the ICANN Board approved Resolution 2008-12-11-02 seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways and requesting that the recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board. * In an email message to the GNSO Council list dated 20 January 2009, the ICANN Vice President, Policy Development clarified that the11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for all user and registrant stakeholders. * The Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring Report sent to the ICANN Board of Directors on 25 July 2008 recommended that the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to membership of all interested parties that use or provide services for the Internet, with the obvious exclusion of the contracted parties and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC and that such recommendation was made in response to the suggestion of the ALAC Liaison to the Council. * The GNSO Council Chair previously contacted the ALAC Chair and the GNSO ALAC Liaison to discuss this topic. * The potential members of the two GNSO Council Non-Contracted Party Stakeholder Groups have been tasked with submitting proposed Stakeholder Group Charters to the ICANN Board prior to the Board meeting on 6 March 2009. Resolve: * The Council requests the GNSO Council ALAC Liaison in consultation with the ALAC Chair to: * Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community have any concerns with regard to the recommendation that membership in the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to individual Internet users in addition to domain name registrants and, if so, to communicate those concerns to the GNSO Council as soon as practical The ALAC and At-Large continue to support having users (which includes registrants) involved in the Non-contracted Party/User House of the GNSO. Our initial reply to the Board is appended below. * Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community would like the GNSO to identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Board's request that could be forwarded to the appropriate groups for their consideration in developing a stakeholder group charter and to the Board for action on GNSO improvement recommendations. We are most certainly interested. As noted in our initial response to the Board, we are committed to responding to the Board by February 20. Our intent is to try to reach some common ground with the GNSO-names individuals. To the extent that we do or do not meet this goal, our response to the Board will note it. If in either case the ALAC or At-large community do not accept this proposal the GNSO council may reconsider the issue. * Provide weekly progress reports to the Council list regarding the above. * The Council directs the Council Chair to: * Apologize to the Board that it failed to meet the Board established deadline of 24 January * Inform the Board that the GNSO: * Is awaiting information from the ALAC. * Is willing in cooperation with users to identify user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation. * Will promptly consider next steps and respond to the Board as quickly as possible after requested information is received from the ALAC as well any recommendation that may be developed by the ALAC and At-Large community. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote *Letter from the Chair of the ALAC to the Chair of the Board of ICANN* I write to you today in connection with ICANN Board Resolution 2008-12-11-02. Whilst the resolution asked that a recommendation on the modalities for including Individual Internet users in the GNSO should be presented to the board by 24^th January, the various parties have been unable to conclude work in the timeframe provided. Considering that much of the available time between 11^th December and 24^th January was over the festive season, I'm sure you and the other board members will understand that whilst we are working on the question, as volunteers during a major family holiday we have had less time for this issue than would otherwise be the case. With respect to At-Large we are also very busy with new gTLDs, the ALAC Review, and the organisation of the At-Large Summit; the Board's request really couldn't have come at a worse time. Nevertheless we are working on the question. I have had discussions with Avri Doria, GNSO Council Chair, on how to convene the various interested parties and I compliment her efforts to encourage constructive work on this question. Unfortunately the modalities for joint work by all interested parties has in itself proven controversial enough that no meeting of that kind has taken place yet, it does appear that things are moving in a positive direction and that discussions of a suitably representative nature will be forthcoming. In the meantime, At-Large has convened a regionally-balanced ad-hoc working group and we have committed to having a considered response not later than 20^th February, irrespective of what efforts involving broader interests is able to produce. What we can say to you at this point is the following: * At-Large and ALAC does not believe that the answer to individual Internet user participation in the GNSO requires -- or is even well-served -- by simply inserting the At-Large community's structures into the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. In fact, we believe that would be both confusing to the community and quite counterproductive. * The concept of opening the GNSO to "users" instead of "registrants" was included in the Report of the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring at the instigation of the ALAC. We remain convinced that the GNSO must include meaningful participation for those speaking on behalf of individual Internet users within both the commercial and non-commercial stakeholder groups. But to be clear, our definition of "user" includes registrants. * "meaningful participation" in this context means that those engaged on behalf of individual Internet users must feel that their voices are influential and effective and equal to the voices of other groups in their Stakeholder Group. Without this, there is no chance that new players can be drawn into the GNSO community. * We have seen the draft NCUC petition and charter for the NCSG, held a meeting with members of the NCUC during the ICANN Cairo meeting to discuss it and we continue to evaluate the proposal. Without prejudice to that proposal, we believe that the ultimate structure of the NCSG must provide a place where all voices and views can be heard on the questions of the day, and where the structures of the NCSG ensure that no voice is disenfranchised and in particular that individual personalities are unable to impose their views on others. Just as "takeover" is an issue within ICANN as a whole, it is also an issue within a SG. Whilst I know that the above is not all that you hoped to receive from us this month, I hope that you will find it useful and we look forward to concluding our work on this question, as soon as possible. Of course if you or your colleagues require clarification on any of the above, I, our ALAC Executive, and the Working Group established for this topic, remain at your service. Kindest regards, (Signed on behalf the ALAC ad-hoc WG on NCSG : GNSO Improvements Implementation) Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2007-2009
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify the issue, Mike. While Bill and I are NCUC representatives on the Council, we certainly (as Chuck noted) do not claim to represent individual users, except insofar as they are members of NCUC. We are both of us, however, interested in participating - through the GNSO mechanism - in what we believe to be a very important process for ICANN. Further, the motion called for the GNSO to "identify user representatives ... willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation" to the Board. As such, I was simply using the language of the motion. I am conscious also of the Board's Resolution 2008-12-11-02, seeking a "recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways ..." As the NCUC is committed to facilitating greater and broader individual inclusion, and as it believes that this effort ought to be inclusive and effective, it seems to me that it also makes sense for NCUC Councillors (and perhaps even members) who have expressed an interest to be part of the effort to develop the requisite recommendation. I assure everyone that this does not mean Bill and I will only express NCUC's views, or participate only as NCUC representatives. I do, however, believe that our participation as GNSO individual nominees will have the added benefit of facilitating smooth and transparent communications and cooperation between those groups, individuals and constituencies that have reason to be interested in the outcome of this process. I hope this clarifies matters, at least in respect of my own views. BTW, since I'm not a member of the ALAC Working List, my emails get bounced from that list. If someone can forward this response to them, I'd be very grateful. With apologies for the length of this email, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> 2/5/2009 4:20 PM >>> Mike,
I didn't assume they were claiming to be representative of individual users but rather that they are individual users. All our motion asked for was invidual users. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:07 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: 'ALAC Working List' Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. Hi Mary, Thanks to you and Bill for volunteering, but could you please describe why you believe you two are representative of individual users? -Mike R. From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:53 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org; Alan Greenberg; Chuck Gomes Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. Everyone, The NCUC would like to express its thanks to those members who have worked on the motion and the various activities that accompany it. We believe the question of individual user engagement is, like public participation, an important and vital part of the ICANN model and process. The NCUC is also fully committed to contributing to processes and models, going forward, that will facilitate individual user participation (non-commercial and otherwise) in the GNSO and other aspects of ICANN work. As such, the NCUC would like to nominate two of its Councillors, viz. myself (Mary) and Bill Drake, to serve as user representatives to assist in creating a useful and representative recommendation to the Board in this respect. Best regards, Mary (for the NCUC) Mary W S Wong Professor of Law FranklinPierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> 2/3/2009 8:19 PM >>>
Avri and all, We need to very quickly "identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Boards request". Does the NCUC have any recommendations? Should we seek some volunteers from the GA list? Can anyone recommend an individual user? Chuck From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:20 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. At 29/01/2009 05:42 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: Motion 4 Motion re: Individual Users in the GNSO ======================================= Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Bill Drake with friendly amendments by Alan Greenberg Whereas: On 11 December 2008, the ICANN Board approved Resolution 2008-12-11-02 seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways and requesting that the recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board. In an email message to the GNSO Council list dated 20 January 2009, the ICANN Vice President, Policy Development clarified that the11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for all user and registrant stakeholders. The Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring Report sent to the ICANN Board of Directors on 25 July 2008 recommended that the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to membership of all interested parties that use or provide services for the Internet, with the obvious exclusion of the contracted parties and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC and that such recommendation was made in response to the suggestion of the ALAC Liaison to the Council. The GNSO Council Chair previously contacted the ALAC Chair and the GNSO ALAC Liaison to discuss this topic. The potential members of the two GNSO Council Non-Contracted Party Stakeholder Groups have been tasked with submitting proposed Stakeholder Group Charters to the ICANN Board prior to the Board meeting on 6 March 2009. Resolve: The Council requests the GNSO Council ALAC Liaison in consultation with the ALAC Chair to: Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community have any concerns with regard to the recommendation that membership in the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to individual Internet users in addition to domain name registrants and, if so, to communicate those concerns to the GNSO Council as soon as practical The ALAC and At-Large continue to support having users (which includes registrants) involved in the Non-contracted Party/User House of the GNSO. Our initial reply to the Board is appended below. Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community would like the GNSO to identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Boards request that could be forwarded to the appropriate groups for their consideration in developing a stakeholder group charter and to the Board for action on GNSO improvement recommendations. We are most certainly interested. As noted in our initial response to the Board, we are committed to responding to the Board by February 20. Our intent is to try to reach some common ground with the GNSO-names individuals. To the extent that we do or do not meet this goal, our response to the Board will note it. If in either case the ALAC or At-large community do not accept this proposal the GNSO council may reconsider the issue. Provide weekly progress reports to the Council list regarding the above. The Council directs the Council Chair to: Apologize to the Board that it failed to meet the Board established deadline of 24 January Inform the Board that the GNSO: Is awaiting information from the ALAC. Is willing in cooperation with users to identify user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation. Will promptly consider next steps and respond to the Board as quickly as possible after requested information is received from the ALAC as well any recommendation that may be developed by the ALAC and At-Large community. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote *Letter from the Chair of the ALAC to the Chair of the Board of ICANN* I write to you today in connection with ICANN Board Resolution 2008-12-11-02. Whilst the resolution asked that a recommendation on the modalities for including Individual Internet users in the GNSO should be presented to the board by 24^th January, the various parties have been unable to conclude work in the timeframe provided. Considering that much of the available time between 11^th December and 24^th January was over the festive season, I'm sure you and the other board members will understand that whilst we are working on the question, as volunteers during a major family holiday we have had less time for this issue than would otherwise be the case. With respect to At-Large we are also very busy with new gTLDs, the ALAC Review, and the organisation of the At-Large Summit; the Board's request really couldn't have come at a worse time. Nevertheless we are working on the question. I have had discussions with Avri Doria, GNSO Council Chair, on how to convene the various interested parties and I compliment her efforts to encourage constructive work on this question. Unfortunately the modalities for joint work by all interested parties has in itself proven controversial enough that no meeting of that kind has taken place yet, it does appear that things are moving in a positive direction and that discussions of a suitably representative nature will be forthcoming. In the meantime, At-Large has convened a regionally-balanced ad-hoc working group and we have committed to having a considered response not later than 20^th February, irrespective of what efforts involving broader interests is able to produce. What we can say to you at this point is the following: * At-Large and ALAC does not believe that the answer to individual Internet user participation in the GNSO requires -- or is even well-served -- by simply inserting the At-Large community's structures into the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. In fact, we believe that would be both confusing to the community and quite counterproductive. * The concept of opening the GNSO to "users" instead of "registrants" was included in the Report of the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring at the instigation of the ALAC. We remain convinced that the GNSO must include meaningful participation for those speaking on behalf of individual Internet users within both the commercial and non-commercial stakeholder groups. But to be clear, our definition of "user" includes registrants. * "meaningful participation" in this context means that those engaged on behalf of individual Internet users must feel that their voices are influential and effective and equal to the voices of other groups in their Stakeholder Group. Without this, there is no chance that new players can be drawn into the GNSO community. * We have seen the draft NCUC petition and charter for the NCSG, held a meeting with members of the NCUC during the ICANN Cairo meeting to discuss it and we continue to evaluate the proposal. Without prejudice to that proposal, we believe that the ultimate structure of the NCSG must provide a place where all voices and views can be heard on the questions of the day, and where the structures of the NCSG ensure that no voice is disenfranchised and in particular that individual personalities are unable to impose their views on others. Just as "takeover" is an issue within ICANN as a whole, it is also an issue within a SG. Whilst I know that the above is not all that you hoped to receive from us this month, I hope that you will find it useful and we look forward to concluding our work on this question, as soon as possible. Of course if you or your colleagues require clarification on any of the above, I, our ALAC Executive, and the Working Group established for this topic, remain at your service. Kindest regards, (Signed on behalf the ALAC ad-hoc WG on NCSG : GNSO Improvements Implementation) Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2007-2009
Dear Chuck, I believe your email further below said: “We need to very quickly "identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Board’s request". Does the NCUC have any recommendations? Should we seek some volunteers from the GA list? Can anyone recommend an individual user?” Would there be a need to justify that persons involved need to represent an individual users perspective rather than overly conflicting with other interests? Would this be important to the perception of transparency and complying with the letter and spirit of what we are trying to do or else impact the credibility of the process? Best regards, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: 06 February 2009 04:03 To: council@gnso.icann.org; icann@rodenbaugh.com; Chuck Gomes Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify the issue, Mike. While Bill and I are NCUC representatives on the Council, we certainly (as Chuck noted) do not claim to represent individual users, except insofar as they are members of NCUC. We are both of us, however, interested in participating - through the GNSO mechanism - in what we believe to be a very important process for ICANN. Further, the motion called for the GNSO to "identify user representatives ... willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation" to the Board. As such, I was simply using the language of the motion. I am conscious also of the Board's Resolution 2008-12-11-02, seeking a "recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways ..." As the NCUC is committed to facilitating greater and broader individual inclusion, and as it believes that this effort ought to be inclusive and effective, it seems to me that it also makes sense for NCUC Councillors (and perhaps even members) who have expressed an interest to be part of the effort to develop the requisite recommendation. I assure everyone that this does not mean Bill and I will only express NCUC's views, or participate only as NCUC representatives. I do, however, believe that our participation as GNSO individual nominees will have the added benefit of facilitating smooth and transparent communications and cooperation between those groups, individuals and constituencies that have reason to be interested in the outcome of this process. I hope this clarifies matters, at least in respect of my own views. BTW, since I'm not a member of the ALAC Working List, my emails get bounced from that list. If someone can forward this response to them, I'd be very grateful. With apologies for the length of this email, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> 2/5/2009 4:20 PM >>>
Mike, I didn't assume they were claiming to be representative of individual users but rather that they are individual users. All our motion asked for was invidual users. Chuck _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:07 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: 'ALAC Working List' Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. Hi Mary, Thanks to you and Bill for volunteering, but could you please describe why you believe you two are ‘representative’ of individual users? -Mike R. _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:53 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org; Alan Greenberg; Chuck Gomes Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. Everyone, The NCUC would like to express its thanks to those members who have worked on the motion and the various activities that accompany it. We believe the question of individual user engagement is, like public participation, an important and vital part of the ICANN model and process. The NCUC is also fully committed to contributing to processes and models, going forward, that will facilitate individual user participation (non-commercial and otherwise) in the GNSO and other aspects of ICANN work. As such, the NCUC would like to nominate two of its Councillors, viz. myself (Mary) and Bill Drake, to serve as user representatives to assist in creating a useful and representative recommendation to the Board in this respect. Best regards, Mary (for the NCUC) Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> 2/3/2009 8:19 PM >>>
Avri and all, We need to very quickly "identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Board’s request". Does the NCUC have any recommendations? Should we seek some volunteers from the GA list? Can anyone recommend an individual user? Chuck _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:20 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. At 29/01/2009 05:42 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: Motion 4 Motion re: Individual Users in the GNSO ======================================= Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Bill Drake with friendly amendments by Alan Greenberg Whereas: * On 11 December 2008, the ICANN Board approved Resolution 2008-12-11-02 seeking a recommendation on how to incorporate the legitimate interests of individual Internet users in the GNSO in constructive yet non-duplicative ways and requesting that the recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board. * In an email message to the GNSO Council list dated 20 January 2009, the ICANN Vice President, Policy Development clarified that the11 December Resolution is an effort to help the Board identify a strategic solution that balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities for all user and registrant stakeholders. * The Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring Report sent to the ICANN Board of Directors on 25 July 2008 recommended that the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to membership of all interested parties that use or provide services for the Internet, with the obvious exclusion of the contracted parties and should explicitly not be restricted to domain registrants as recommended by the BGC and that such recommendation was made in response to the suggestion of the ALAC Liaison to the Council. * The GNSO Council Chair previously contacted the ALAC Chair and the GNSO ALAC Liaison to discuss this topic. * The potential members of the two GNSO Council Non-Contracted Party Stakeholder Groups have been tasked with submitting proposed Stakeholder Group Charters to the ICANN Board prior to the Board meeting on 6 March 2009. Resolve: * The Council requests the GNSO Council ALAC Liaison in consultation with the ALAC Chair to: * Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community have any concerns with regard to the recommendation that membership in the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open to individual Internet users in addition to domain name registrants and, if so, to communicate those concerns to the GNSO Council as soon as practical The ALAC and At-Large continue to support having users (which includes registrants) involved in the Non-contracted Party/User House of the GNSO. Our initial reply to the Board is appended below. * Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large community would like the GNSO to identify some user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation regarding the Board’s request that could be forwarded to the appropriate groups for their consideration in developing a stakeholder group charter and to the Board for action on GNSO improvement recommendations. We are most certainly interested. As noted in our initial response to the Board, we are committed to responding to the Board by February 20. Our intent is to try to reach some common ground with the GNSO-names individuals. To the extent that we do or do not meet this goal, our response to the Board will note it. If in either case the ALAC or At-large community do not accept this proposal the GNSO council may reconsider the issue. * Provide weekly progress reports to the Council list regarding the above. * The Council directs the Council Chair to: * Apologize to the Board that it failed to meet the Board established deadline of 24 January * Inform the Board that the GNSO: * Is awaiting information from the ALAC. * Is willing in cooperation with users to identify user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large community to develop a recommendation. * Will promptly consider next steps and respond to the Board as quickly as possible after requested information is received from the ALAC as well any recommendation that may be developed by the ALAC and At-Large community. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote *Letter from the Chair of the ALAC to the Chair of the Board of ICANN* I write to you today in connection with ICANN Board Resolution 2008-12-11-02. Whilst the resolution asked that a recommendation on the modalities for including Individual Internet users in the GNSO should be presented to the board by 24^th January, the various parties have been unable to conclude work in the timeframe provided. Considering that much of the available time between 11^th December and 24^th January was over the festive season, I'm sure you and the other board members will understand that whilst we are working on the question, as volunteers during a major family holiday we have had less time for this issue than would otherwise be the case. With respect to At-Large we are also very busy with new gTLDs, the ALAC Review, and the organisation of the At-Large Summit; the Board's request really couldn't have come at a worse time. Nevertheless we are working on the question. I have had discussions with Avri Doria, GNSO Council Chair, on how to convene the various interested parties and I compliment her efforts to encourage constructive work on this question. Unfortunately the modalities for joint work by all interested parties has in itself proven controversial enough that no meeting of that kind has taken place yet, it does appear that things are moving in a positive direction and that discussions of a suitably representative nature will be forthcoming. In the meantime, At-Large has convened a regionally-balanced ad-hoc working group and we have committed to having a considered response not later than 20^th February, irrespective of what efforts involving broader interests is able to produce. What we can say to you at this point is the following: * At-Large and ALAC does not believe that the answer to individual Internet user participation in the GNSO requires -- or is even well-served -- by simply inserting the At-Large community's structures into the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. In fact, we believe that would be both confusing to the community and quite counterproductive. * The concept of opening the GNSO to "users" instead of "registrants" was included in the Report of the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring at the instigation of the ALAC. We remain convinced that the GNSO must include meaningful participation for those speaking on behalf of individual Internet users within both the commercial and non-commercial stakeholder groups. But to be clear, our definition of "user" includes registrants. * "meaningful participation" in this context means that those engaged on behalf of individual Internet users must feel that their voices are influential and effective and equal to the voices of other groups in their Stakeholder Group. Without this, there is no chance that new players can be drawn into the GNSO community. * We have seen the draft NCUC petition and charter for the NCSG, held a meeting with members of the NCUC during the ICANN Cairo meeting to discuss it and we continue to evaluate the proposal. Without prejudice to that proposal, we believe that the ultimate structure of the NCSG must provide a place where all voices and views can be heard on the questions of the day, and where the structures of the NCSG ensure that no voice is disenfranchised and in particular that individual personalities are unable to impose their views on others. Just as "takeover" is an issue within ICANN as a whole, it is also an issue within a SG. Whilst I know that the above is not all that you hoped to receive from us this month, I hope that you will find it useful and we look forward to concluding our work on this question, as soon as possible. Of course if you or your colleagues require clarification on any of the above, I, our ALAC Executive, and the Working Group established for this topic, remain at your service. Kindest regards, (Signed on behalf the ALAC ad-hoc WG on NCSG : GNSO Improvements Implementation) Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2007-2009
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:37 +0500, Zahid Jamil wrote:
Would there be a need to justify that persons involved need to represent an individual users perspective rather than overly conflicting with other interests?
How does one do this? In some sense aren't we all individual users? So would it not be up to each volunteer to indicate whether they felt they could represent the viewpoint of an individual user in this particular effort? a.
Two good questions. If we are seeking ind. user representatives, it would be nice to know that's what they actually are and that they do truly represent the constituency they are claiming to represent. On the other hand, it is true that we could probably all qualify as ind. users. So the risk here is that the ind. user group becomes a kind of "catch-all". Stéphane Van Gelder Le 06/02/09 06:04, « Avri Doria » <avri@psg.com> a écrit :
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:37 +0500, Zahid Jamil wrote:
Would there be a need to justify that persons involved need to represent an individual users perspective rather than overly conflicting with other interests?
How does one do this?
In some sense aren't we all individual users? So would it not be up to each volunteer to indicate whether they felt they could represent the viewpoint of an individual user in this particular effort?
a.
Indeed. As such any of us who may be representing organisations would also be able to volunteer. Is that the intention? If so some from the CBUC may wish to volunteer as well. I understand that the BC may then wish to put some names forward as well. Best regards, Zahid Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: 06 February 2009 14:08 To: avri@acm.org; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO. Two good questions. If we are seeking ind. user representatives, it would be nice to know that's what they actually are and that they do truly represent the constituency they are claiming to represent. On the other hand, it is true that we could probably all qualify as ind. users. So the risk here is that the ind. user group becomes a kind of "catch-all". Stéphane Van Gelder Le 06/02/09 06:04, « Avri Doria » <avri@psg.com> a écrit :
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:37 +0500, Zahid Jamil wrote:
Would there be a need to justify that persons involved need to
represent an individual users perspective rather than overly
conflicting with other interests?
How does one do this?
In some sense aren't we all individual users? So would it not be up to
each volunteer to indicate whether they felt they could represent the
viewpoint of an individual user in this particular effort?
a.
I recommend that we not make a huge issue out of this and simply identify some individual users to work with the ALAC. First of all, we do not have time because, even with the Board extension, we have to provide any recommendations by 20 February. Secondly, the key is really to try and develop some sound recommendations about how to involve individual users in the GNSO without being duplicative with the ALAC. If there are individuals from anywhere in the GNSO that are available and willing to contribute constructively to the work that the ALAC is doing in response to the Board's request, volunteer, but do it quickly because the work is already ongoing and will be over before we know it. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 4:08 AM To: avri@acm.org; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
Two good questions. If we are seeking ind. user representatives, it would be nice to know that's what they actually are and that they do truly represent the constituency they are claiming to represent.
On the other hand, it is true that we could probably all qualify as ind. users.
So the risk here is that the ind. user group becomes a kind of "catch-all".
Stéphane Van Gelder
Le 06/02/09 06:04, « Avri Doria » <avri@psg.com> a écrit :
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:37 +0500, Zahid Jamil wrote:
Would there be a need to justify that persons involved need to represent an individual users perspective rather than overly conflicting with other interests?
How does one do this?
In some sense aren't we all individual users? So would it
not be up
to each volunteer to indicate whether they felt they could represent the viewpoint of an individual user in this particular effort?
a.
hi, I would like to sit in on this group. I am not sure, however, whether I should be a proper member or an observer. While I certainly see myself as an individual user, of both the commercial and the non-commercial flavor (i am both a technical contractor with a domain name and a social activist with a domain name), and think that in some sense my nature as an independent independent user has fed into my appointment by the nomcom to the GNSO, I cannot say that I represent Internet users. Further in the context of any such effort, I would be as inclined, a chair of the council, to present what I understood to be the multiplicity of GNSO Council viewpoints as to present my own view of what was good for both individual users and the ICANN/GNSO. I.e. I would try to do both. I am certainly committed to the overall advisory role of ALAC and as I have said publicly on more then one occasion, believe that it should occupy an advisory role on a par with the GAC. And while I have tended toward the view that the GNSO constituencies were for contracted parties and registrants (in agreement with the BGC report), have accepted that the prevailing view in the council is for the inclusion of users, and as chair will support that view. I also believe it is important to find a way of doing it that is non-duplicative. So, this is a mixed bag, but if people don't object, I am interested in participating in the process. a. On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 11:37 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I recommend that we not make a huge issue out of this and simply identify some individual users to work with the ALAC. First of all, we do not have time because, even with the Board extension, we have to provide any recommendations by 20 February. Secondly, the key is really to try and develop some sound recommendations about how to involve individual users in the GNSO without being duplicative with the ALAC. If there are individuals from anywhere in the GNSO that are available and willing to contribute constructively to the work that the ALAC is doing in response to the Board's request, volunteer, but do it quickly because the work is already ongoing and will be over before we know it.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 4:08 AM To: avri@acm.org; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
Two good questions. If we are seeking ind. user representatives, it would be nice to know that's what they actually are and that they do truly represent the constituency they are claiming to represent.
On the other hand, it is true that we could probably all qualify as ind. users.
So the risk here is that the ind. user group becomes a kind of "catch-all".
Stéphane Van Gelder
Le 06/02/09 06:04, « Avri Doria » <avri@psg.com> a écrit :
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:37 +0500, Zahid Jamil wrote:
Would there be a need to justify that persons involved need to represent an individual users perspective rather than overly conflicting with other interests?
How does one do this?
In some sense aren't we all individual users? So would it
not be up
to each volunteer to indicate whether they felt they could represent the viewpoint of an individual user in this particular effort?
a.
Am I correct that up to this point we have three volunteers: Bill Drake, Mary Wong and Avri. Did I miss anyone? Any additional individual volunteers should speak up very soon. Alan - Will you make sure that these three are informed how to participate in the ongoing work of the ALAC in this regard? Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 1:34 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
hi,
I would like to sit in on this group. I am not sure, however, whether I should be a proper member or an observer.
While I certainly see myself as an individual user, of both the commercial and the non-commercial flavor (i am both a technical contractor with a domain name and a social activist with a domain name), and think that in some sense my nature as an independent independent user has fed into my appointment by the nomcom to the GNSO, I cannot say that I represent Internet users. Further in the context of any such effort, I would be as inclined, a chair of the council, to present what I understood to be the multiplicity of GNSO Council viewpoints as to present my own view of what was good for both individual users and the ICANN/GNSO. I.e. I would try to do both.
I am certainly committed to the overall advisory role of ALAC and as I have said publicly on more then one occasion, believe that it should occupy an advisory role on a par with the GAC. And while I have tended toward the view that the GNSO constituencies were for contracted parties and registrants (in agreement with the BGC report), have accepted that the prevailing view in the council is for the inclusion of users, and as chair will support that view. I also believe it is important to find a way of doing it that is non-duplicative.
So, this is a mixed bag, but if people don't object, I am interested in participating in the process.
a.
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 11:37 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I recommend that we not make a huge issue out of this and simply identify some individual users to work with the ALAC. First of all, we do not have time because, even with the Board extension, we have to provide any recommendations by 20 February. Secondly, the key is really to try and develop some sound recommendations about how to involve individual users in the GNSO without being duplicative with the ALAC. If there are individuals from anywhere in the GNSO that are available and willing to contribute constructively to the work that the ALAC is doing in response to the Board's request, volunteer, but do it quickly because the work is already ongoing and will be over before we know it.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 4:08 AM To: avri@acm.org; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
Two good questions. If we are seeking ind. user representatives, it would be nice to know that's what they actually are and that they do truly represent the constituency they are claiming to represent.
On the other hand, it is true that we could probably all qualify as ind. users.
So the risk here is that the ind. user group becomes a kind of "catch-all".
Stéphane Van Gelder
Le 06/02/09 06:04, « Avri Doria » <avri@psg.com> a écrit :
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:37 +0500, Zahid Jamil wrote:
Would there be a need to justify that persons involved need to represent an individual users perspective rather than overly conflicting with other interests?
How does one do this?
In some sense aren't we all individual users? So would it
not be up
to each volunteer to indicate whether they felt they could represent the viewpoint of an individual user in this particular effort?
a.
With regards to involving individual users, what about the IEEE ? I just checked their website: www.ieee.org The members are individuals (engineering professionals), and would appear to qualify as "users" of the Internet? Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> To: "Stéphane Van Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <avri@acm.org>; "GNSO Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 1:37 PM Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
I recommend that we not make a huge issue out of this and simply identify some individual users to work with the ALAC. First of all, we do not have time because, even with the Board extension, we have to provide any recommendations by 20 February. Secondly, the key is really to try and develop some sound recommendations about how to involve individual users in the GNSO without being duplicative with the ALAC. If there are individuals from anywhere in the GNSO that are available and willing to contribute constructively to the work that the ALAC is doing in response to the Board's request, volunteer, but do it quickly because the work is already ongoing and will be over before we know it.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 4:08 AM To: avri@acm.org; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
Two good questions. If we are seeking ind. user representatives, it would be nice to know that's what they actually are and that they do truly represent the constituency they are claiming to represent.
On the other hand, it is true that we could probably all qualify as ind. users.
So the risk here is that the ind. user group becomes a kind of "catch-all".
Stéphane Van Gelder
Le 06/02/09 06:04, « Avri Doria » <avri@psg.com> a écrit :
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:37 +0500, Zahid Jamil wrote:
Would there be a need to justify that persons involved need to represent an individual users perspective rather than overly conflicting with other interests?
How does one do this?
In some sense aren't we all individual users? So would it
not be up
to each volunteer to indicate whether they felt they could represent the viewpoint of an individual user in this particular effort?
a.
If we can get a volunteer almost immediately, it probably would be fine, at least in my opinion. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Anthony Harris [mailto:harris@cabase.org.ar] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 10:03 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Stéphane Van Gelder; avri@acm.org; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
With regards to involving individual users, what about the IEEE ? I just checked their website: www.ieee.org
The members are individuals (engineering professionals), and would appear to qualify as "users" of the Internet?
Tony Harris
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> To: "Stéphane Van Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <avri@acm.org>; "GNSO Council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 1:37 PM Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
I recommend that we not make a huge issue out of this and simply identify some individual users to work with the ALAC.
First of all,
we do not have time because, even with the Board extension, we have to provide any recommendations by 20 February. Secondly, the key is really to try and develop some sound recommendations about how to involve individual users in the GNSO without being duplicative with the ALAC. If there are individuals from anywhere in the GNSO that are available and willing to contribute constructively to the work that the ALAC is doing in response to the Board's request, volunteer, but do it quickly because the work is already ongoing and will be over before we know it.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 4:08 AM To: avri@acm.org; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
Two good questions. If we are seeking ind. user representatives, it would be nice to know that's what they actually are and that they do truly represent the constituency they are claiming to represent.
On the other hand, it is true that we could probably all qualify as ind. users.
So the risk here is that the ind. user group becomes a kind of "catch-all".
Stéphane Van Gelder
Le 06/02/09 06:04, « Avri Doria » <avri@psg.com> a écrit :
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:37 +0500, Zahid Jamil wrote:
Would there be a need to justify that persons involved need to represent an individual users perspective rather than overly conflicting with other interests?
How does one do this?
In some sense aren't we all individual users? So would it
not be up
to each volunteer to indicate whether they felt they could represent the viewpoint of an individual user in this particular effort?
a.
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Anthony Harris -
Avri Doria -
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mary Wong -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Zahid Jamil